(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Frontier process in eighteenth century colonial Georgia : an archeological approach"

FRONTIER PROCESS 
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA: 
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH 



BY 

NICHOLAS HONERKAMP 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN 
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 
1980 



Digitized by 


the Internet Archive 






in 2014 







https://archive.org/details/frontierprocessiOOhone 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



A great many people contributed to this study. Some 
offered suggestions and encouragement; others, their labor 
and expertise. In the case of the National Park Service, 
funds were provided to carry out the research. Individuals 
will be mentioned here with the understanding that their 
contributions can never be acknowledged to the extent that 
they deserve. 

The members of my doctoral committee, Charles H. 
Fairbanks, Kathleen A. Deagan, Prudence M. Rice, Jerald T. 
Milanich, and John K. Mahon , have been extremely generous 
with their advice and criticism during the course of the 
project. Besides their impact on the present study, two 
members in particular have had a profound influence on my 
development as an archeologist . Ten years ago Dr. Fairbanks 
stimulated my interest in anthropology through his lectures 
on North American prehistory. After attending a Fairbanks- 
led archeological field school, that interest changed into an 
overwhelming ambition to persue archeology on a full-time 
basis. Dr. Deagan helped me realize the importance of a 
systematic, scientific approach to the study of human 
behavior. I am indeed fortunate to have worked closely with 
both of these scholars. 

ii 



I was also fortunate to have been associated with the 
members of the three field crews that participated in this 
project. The field people are: 



Wendy Bolles 
Bruce Ferguson 
Wayde Hanna 
Roberta Owens 
Diane Sylvia 



Julie Emrich 
Jane Gray 
Patricia McKay 
Tricia Sokol 
Dan Yannette 



Charles Chambers 
Kevin Galleger 
Joan Hebb 
Martha Pinello 
Patricia Welsh 
Drew Yaros 

Among the many volunteers that contributed to the project 
were John Battle, Anita Fulton, Julia Furgeson, Lisa 
Laudadia, Susan Loftin, Vincent Pinoso, Robin Smith, Mrs. R. 
Welsh, and Clint Wills. Chad Braley assisted with production 
of the artifact photographs used in Chapter V. 

At the Florida State Museum, the following persons 
provided invaluable instruction and assistance during the 
faunal analysis: Elizabeth Wing, Elizabeth Reitz, Sylvia 
Scudder, Erica Simons, Arlene Fradkin, and Tom Chase. In 
addition, Dr. Reitz has contributed much to my knowledge of 
colonial resource utilization and is primarily responsible 
for stimulating my interest in this subject. Many of the 
ideas presented in this study concerning colonial patterns of 
faunal use stem from suggestions she has made in her own work 
or in our collaborative efforts. 

The National Park Service has been extremely supportive 
of this project in every way. Deserving special praise for 
their cooperation and assistance are Chief Richard Faust, 

i i i 



Archeologist George Fischer, and Laboratory Director James 
Stoutamire of the Southeast Archeological Center in 
Tallahassee. At Fort Frederica, the entire staff supported 
and sometimes actively participated in the project. Former 
Supervisor Janet Wolf and Assistant Supervisor George Berndt 
were particularly helpfull in seeing that the field work was 
successfully carried out. 

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Robin L. Smith 
for her editorial contributions and especially for her 
constant encouragement and criticisms. Her personal and 
professional support was invaluable during all phases of the 
project, and will continue to be essential to me in the 
future . 



i v 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii 

LIST OF TABLES vii 

LIST OF FIGURES viii 

ABSTRACT x 

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 

Location and Setting 3 

Previous Research 9 

Project Background 15 

II. METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 17 

Competing Paradigms in Historical 

Archeology 18 

Old Particularism 20 

New Particularism 22 

Pattern Recognition 27 

Eclectic Approach 30 

Theoretical-Methodological Position 31 

III. RESEARCH DESIGN 34 

Concepts and Definitions 34 

IV. DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND 41 

Historical Context: Georgia 41 

Historical Context: Frederica 45 

General Temporal-Demographic Parameters ... 51 

Spatial Parameters 55 

The Hawkins-Davison Site 57 

The Hird Site 59 

The Dobree Site 60 

V. METHODS AND MATERIALS 65 

Excavation Procedures 66 

Horizontal Control 78 

Stratigraphy 79 

Analytical Methods and Results 80 

Faunal Analysis 142 



v 



VI. SITE FORM AND CONTENT 158 

Dobree Site Features 158 

Hird Site Features 210 

Hawkins-Davison Site Features 214 

Summary 214 

VII. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 216 

Cultural Affiliation 217 

Temporal Parameters 220 

Site Form and Function 225 

Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution . . 262 

Subsistence and Diet 274 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 289 

REFERENCES CITED 296 

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE .... 309 

APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL 

ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE 311 

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS, 

DOBREE SITE 314 

APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE ... 317 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 320 



v i 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table 4-1. Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions, 

Frederica 56 

Table 5-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site ... 88 
Table 5-2. Identifiable Ceramics from Three Sites, 

Frederica, Georgia 90 

Table 5-3. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three 

Ceramic Categories 101 

Table 5-4. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three Nail 

Types, Dobree Site 101 

Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class 

Artifacts, Dobree Site 120 

Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class, 

Dobree Site 122 

Table 5-7. Artifact Class Frequencies, Hird Site .... 143 
Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass 

Calculations 148 

Table 5-9. Species List for the Dobree Site, Lot 31 

South, Frederica 151 

Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree 

Site, Frederica 155 

Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Catergories, Hawkins- 
Davison Site, Frederica 156 

Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird 

Site, Frederica 157 

Table 6-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree 

Site 162 

Table 6-2. Frequency Percentages for Four Artifact 

Classes, Wells, Dobree Site 184 

Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Mater- 
ials, Hird and Dobree Sites 232 

Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site 234 

Table 7-3- Emperical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site . . . 242 
Table 7-4. Emperical Artifact Profile, Hird Site .... 243 
Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica 

And Carolina Sites 244 

Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients For Six Artifact 

Categories, Dobree Site 251 

Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag, 

Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site 253 

Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites, 

Frederica, Georgia 282 

Table 7-9. Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion, Hird 

Site, Frederica 284 



vi i 



LIST OF FIGURES 



Figure 1-1. The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia . . 5 
Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map, St. Simons Island, 

Georgia 7 

Figure 1-3. Layout of The Fort And Town of Frederica, 

circa 1740 11 

Figure 1-4. Composite Excavation Map, Frederica .... 13 

Figure 4-1. 1796 Miller Map of Frederica 55 

Figure 5-1. Excavation Plan, Hawkins-Davison Site ... 68 

Figure 5-2. Excavation Plan, Hird Site 70 

Figure 5-3. Excavation Plan, Dobree Site 72 

Figure 5-4. Actual Area Excavated, Dobree Site .... 74 
Figure 5-5. Field Work In Progress, Dobree Site .... 77 
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Pos tcreamware Ceramics, 

Plowzone, Dobree Site 93 

Figure 5-7. Distribution of Identifiable Colonial 

Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site 95 

Figure 5-8. Ceramic Artifacts, Dobree Site 99 

Figure 5-9. Tableware Ceramic Vessels, Dobree 

Site 104 

Figure 5-10. Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic 

Vessels, Dobree Site 106 

Figure 5-11. Wine Bottles, Dobree Site 109 

Figure 5-12. Glass Tableware Items, Dobree Site ... 111 
Figure 5-13. Tableware Artifacts, Dobree Site .... 114 
Figure 5-14. Architecture and Furniture Group 

Artifacts, Dobree Site 119 

Figure 5-15. Arms Artifacts, Dobree Site 124 

Figure 5-16. Clothing Artifacts, Dobree Site 128 

Figure 5-17. Personal Group Artifacts, Dobree Site . . 131 
Figure 5-18. Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree 

Site 134 

Figure 5-19. Snaffle Bit, Dobree Site 1 3 6 

Figure 5-20. Military Artifacts, Dobree Site 141 

Figure 6-1. Composite Map of Dobree Site Features . . 160 
Figure 6-2. Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree 

Site 166 

Figure 6-3. Initial Excavation of Feature 1 Barrel 

Well, Dobree Site 166 

Figure 6-4. Profile of Feature 1 (Barrel Well), 

Square 31, Dobree Site 1 69 

Figure 6-5. Profile of Feature 2 Well Pit, Dobree 

Site 173 

Figure 6-6. Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site . . 176 
Figure 6-7. Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, 

Dobree Site 176 

Figure 6-8. Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well, 

Dobree Site 179 

Figure 6-9. Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site . . 179 
Figure 6-10. Frequency or Weight Percentages for Nine 

Artifact Groups, Features, Dobree 

Site 183 



vi i i 



Figure 6-11. Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit, Dobree 

Site 187 

Figure 6-12. Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash 

Pit, Dobree Site 187 

Figure 6-13. Composite Map of Dobree Site 

Postholes 192 

Figure 6—14. Distribution of Construction Materials, 

Plowzone, Dobree Site 195 

Figure 6-15. Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub 

Structure, Dobree Site 197 

Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench, 

Dobree Site 202 

Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall 

Trench, Dobree Site 202 

Figure 6-18. Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying 

Postholes, Dobree Site 205 

Figure 6-19. Compostie Map of Hird Site Features . . . 213 
Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone, 

Dobree Site 249 

Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for 

Plowzone Ceramics, Dobree Site 256 

Figure 7-3. Distribution of Oriental Porcelain 

Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 259 
Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments, 

Plowzone, Dobree Site 265 

Figure 7-5. Distribution of Faunal Materials, 

Plowzone, Dobree Site 267 

Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe 

Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 269 
Figure 7-7. Distribution of Wrought and Square 

Nails, Plowzone, Dobree Site 271 

Figure 7-8. Distribution of Window Glass Fragments, 

Plowzone, Dobree Site 273 



ix 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council 
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



FRONTIER PROCESS 
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA: 
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH 

By 

Nicholas Honerkamp 
December 1980 

Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks 
Major Department: Anthropology 

Frontier regions offer unique opportunities for 
anthropologists to study the adaptive responses of intrusive 
colonizing societies to new social and natural conditions. 
The process of colonization is reflected archeologically 
through the patterning of settlement structure and function. 
The purpose of this study is to examine the archeological 
correlates of a British colonial frontier adaptation in 
Georgia and to interpret this evidence through reference to 
documented 18th century sociocultural , political, and 
demographic factors. 

Analysis of archeological materials from three sites at 
Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-1750), and contemporaneous 

x 



British colonial sites in the southeastern United States is 
used to address hypotheses concerning frontier adaptations. 
Using Stanley South's "pattern recognition" methodological 
approach to organize the data, interpretation of the evidence 
from Frederica was accomplished through the application of a 
frontier model proposed by Kenneth E. Lewis. Questions 
concerning cultural affiliation, temporal parameters, and 
site structure and function were examined at the town and lot 
level. Additionally, the nearly complete excavation of one 
of the sites allowed an empirical test of South's Brunswick 
Pattern of Refuse Disposal to be made. Zooarcheological data 
from Frederica were also presented for comparison with a 
traditional model of resource utilization designated as the 
British Barnyard Complex. 

Results of the analysis demonstrated the applicability 
of Lewis' model to the Frederica data. Due to the need for 
defense against a competing state power, the settlement 
pattern at Frederica more closely resembled the concentrated, 
evenly-spaced row pattern of European market towns than the 
dispersed, random arrangement found at frontier towns such as 
Camden, South Carolina. At the lot level, clustering of 
subsurface features, maximum utilization of lot elements, 
differential bone deposition, and demarcation of lot 
boundaries is believed to have resulted from the same 
demographic and sociopolitical factors that shaped the 
settlement pattern of the town as a whole. Quantitative and 
qualitative evidence of site function was also found to 

xi 



reflect frontier constraints and conditions. As with Camden, 
the occurrence of domestic and craft activity by-products at 
the Frederica sites indicates the multifunctional nature of 
frontier occupations. Comparison of artifact profiles from 
sites at Frederica, Camden, and Brunswick Town, South 
Carolina, revealed patterning of frequency relationships that 
were explicable in terms of intersite functional differences. 

Graphic presentation of artifact distributions at one of 
the sites at Frederica indicates a departure from the 
Brunswick Pattern described by South. Instead of disposal of 
refuse adjacent to a post-supported structure, there is 
evidence of "bimodal trash disposal behavior" by the site's 
occupants. The first behavioral mode involves dispersed 
surface disposal of trash, while the second is associated 
with purposeful concentration of trash, particularly food 
bone, in subsurface features. An orientation toward trash 
disposal in areas adjacent to the house was not associated 
with either mode. It is suggested that, instead of 
systematic British colonial refuse disposal behavior cited by 
South, the limited size of the samples used to define the 
Brunswick Pattern may be responsible for its occurrence. 

Little correspondence was seen between the traditional 
model of British colonial resource utilization and the 
zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. The British 
Barnyard Complex, characterized by an overwhelming emphasis 
on the use of swine, sheep, and less importantly, dairy 
cattle, was not replicated at Frederica. Substantial 

xi i 



adjustments to New World conditions are indicated by an 
increased reliance placed on wild terrestrial fauna and a 
shift from swine to cattle, as measured through comparison 
biomass values derived from archeological bone. Similar 
results from contemporaneous British and Spanish colonial 
sites in St. Augustine, Florida, indicate that the 
traditional colonial foodways model is in need of major 
revision . 



xi i i 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The British colonial settlement of Frederica was 
established on St. Simons Island, Georgia, in 1736. Planned 
as a major military-civilian fortified outpost, Frederica's 
existence owed more to the bellicose machinations of Britain 
and Spain than to anything else. Significantly, earthworks 
for the walls of a fort were among the first things con- 
structed by the 40 English families who founded the town. 
Subsequent events during the settlement's short history serve 
to underscore the interdependence between military and civil 
segments of the community. When the regiment left in 1748, 
Frederica's civilian population quickly relocated to other 
settled communities or frontier areas. By the early 1750s 
only a dozen or so families remained out of the more than 
1000 inhabitants who had lived there a few years earlier. 

Although it existed as a community for little more than 
15 years, a great deal of historical and archeological 
information dealing with various aspects of 18th century 
British colonial life at Frederica is potentially available. 
Since 19^5, when it was established as a national monument, 
Fort Frederica has been the focus of considerable archeo- 
logical and documentary research. As part of the U.S. 
National Park system, most of this research has been directed 

1 



2 



toward recovering information useful for on-site reconstruc- 
tion and interpretation of British colonial lifeways at the 
fort and associated town. In recent years this traditional 
National Park Service goal has been augmented by research 
aimed at addressing problems of anthropological significance, 
such as defining socio-economic indicators in the documentary 
and archeological records, examining the extent of wild 
versus domestic animal utilization, and revealing the 
presence of craft activities and delimiting areas where they 
were practiced. It should be emphasized that these questions 
are complementary to those aimed at site reconstruction, but 
they involve different methodological emphases and different 
field and analysis techniques. 

The archeological research reported here has been sup- 
ported by a National Park Service grant for $19,381.00 to the 
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida (Contract 
No. 0X50008075*0 . This project consisted of excavation of a 
domestic town lot at Frederica (believed to be Lot 31, South 
Ward), analysis of the documentary and archeological data 
pertaining to the site, and synthesis of these data and 
information derived from previous excavations. Principal 
Investigator for the project was University of Florida 
Distinguished Service Professor in Anthropology Charles H. 
Fairbanks. The author supervised field and preliminary 
laboratory work and was responsible for analysis of artifacts 
and faunal materials. 



3 

Field work was carried out at Lot 31 South in three 10 
week periods in the spring and fall of 1978 and in the winter 
of 1979. Excavation crews consisted of undergraduates from 
the University of Florida and Florida State University, who 
were enrolled in the University of Florida Archeological 
Field School course, as well as volunteers. There were three 
full-time excavators in the spring, five in the fall, and 
eight during the winter session, for a total of 160 crew 
weeks. Numerous part-time volunteers also contributed to the 
project. The author was assisted part-time by two under- 
graduate students in cataloging artifacts for a nine week 
period following the field work. 

Location and Setting 
Located approximately 10 kilometers east of Brunswick, 
Georgia, Fort Frederica National Monument is situated on a 
bluff overlooking the Intracoastal Waterway on the western 
edge of St. Simons Island (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). St. Simons 
is part of a barrier island chain extending along the 
southern Atlantic coast from Amelia Island, Florida, to Cape 
Fear, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). As is true of most of the 
barrier islands, St. Simons is characterized by diverse 
habitats, notably the beach-dune configuration facing the 
ocean, the maritime forests on the island interior, and the 
tidal marsh lying between the island and the mainland. This 
diversity of habitats contrasts sharply with the essentially 
homogenous environment of the pine forests on the coastal 
plain. Detailed descriptions of geology and ecology of the 



Figure 1-1. The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia. 



5 




Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 



8 



coastal region are provided by Johnson et al . (1974). The 
low upland ridge upon which Frederica lies is part of an 
ancient marine terrace known as the Princess Ann Formation. 
Soils at Frederica conform to the somewhat excessively 
drained, fine sand characteristics of the Cainhoy soil phase 
that is associated with ridgetops of relict marine terraces 
on the Georgia coast (Rigdon and Green 1980). 

According to Robin Smith (1978:8-11), the geological 
characteristics of areas similar to the one in which Fred- 
erica is located have had important implications in human 
settlement patterning. Smith has convincingly demonstrated a 
pattern of prehistoric and historic settlement activities 
which focus on the fine sand bluffs adjacent to the salt 
marshes of the coast. The high, well-drained soils of these 
areas comprised an important scarce resource supportive of 
human life, and as a consequence a succession of indigenous 
and immigrant populations has used this land in various ways. 
The 18th century British occupation at Frederica is seen as 
conforming to this general barrier island marsh-bluff set- 
tlement orientation. 

As can be seen in Figure 1-2, the fort and town are 
located at a sharp bend of the Frederica River. The military 
advantages accruing from this position in the context of 18th 
century martial technologies have been fully discussed by 
others and need no reiteration here (Cate 19^3; Ivers 1974; 
Manucy 1962). Ironically, some of the factors contributing 
to the selection of Frederica's location as a site for a 



9 



frontier settlement have also been responsible for the 
destruction of part of the archeological record. The depth 
of the Frederica River at this bend allowed colonial period 
ships of considerable draught to closely approach the fort 
for offloading of people, material, and supplies. Over the 
years the swift movement of the current at this deep water 
point has eroded the east shore of the river, resulting in 
the loss of a significant portion of the fort area, including 
the entire battery spurwork shown in Figure 1-3. Addition- 
ally, the soil characteristics of the upland bluff area that 
successfully supported both aboriginal and colonial popula- 
tions also attracted more modern occupants. Alterations to 
the landscape associated with postcolonial occupations 
include plow cultivation and construction of roads and 
dwellings, both of which have adversely affected archeolo- 
gical resources. The present preservation policy of the 
National Park Service has substantially reduced further 
degradation of these resources. 

Previous Research 
Although a good deal of dirt has been moved at Frederica 
in the interest of archeology, most of the excavations have 
been devoted to delineating the layout of the town and to 
exposing military construction features and domestic archi- 
tecture (Deagan 1975). In the town itself, all of the 
domestic sites facing Broad Street and the northern section 
of Cross Street have been excavated (Figure 1-4). Several 
interpretive reports have emerged from this work, including 



Figure 1-3. Layout of the Fort and Town of Frederica, 
circa 1740. 



Sites ; 1 - Hird Site, 12 North 

2 - Hawkins-Davison Site, 1 and 2 South 

3 - Dobree Site, 31 South 



Figure 1-4. Composite Excavation Map, Frederica. 



Excavated areas are shown in black. 



13 




14 

Manucy's synthesis of the archeology and history of the 
military and civilian portions of the settlement (1960, 
1962), Fairbanks' study of the architecture and associated 
artifacts from the Hawkins-Davison site (1952, 1956), and 
Reese's popularization of Manucy's studies (Reese 1969). 
Despite the considerable accumulation of artifactual and 
housing data resulting from these projects, analysis of arti- 
facts which would allow testing of research hypotheses of a 
processual nature has been lacking. More recent work has 
been oriented toward addressing problems of anthropological 
significance. Deagan's (1972) report on the analysis of the 
Hawkins-Davison material was concerned with such questions as 
delineating the material correlates of social status, live- 
lihood, and behavior. Her study represents the first fully 
analyzed site report made at Frederica. The present author's 
excavation and analysis of a site in the North Ward (Lot 12) 
was primarily descriptive, although it did identify some 
methodological questions of concern to archeologi sts working 
at colonial sites and indicated hypotheses for future testing 
at Frederica (1975). A popularized interpretive summary of 
this project was also produced (Honerkamp 1977a). 

In 1975 Kathleen Deagan reviewed and assessed the arche- 
ological research carried out at Frederica in a report pre- 
pared for the National Park Service. In this document, which 
now functions as a master plan for archeology at Frederica, 
Deagan has 

1) outlined the results of all excavations carried out 
from 1945 through 1975; 



15 

2) summarized the types of information obtained (and 
ignored) through the archeological field work; 

3) assessed the research potential of the extant 
artifact collections and of the unexcavated sites; 
and 

4) identified problem areas and research emphases for 
which Frederica is best suited. 

Specific recommendations included sampling sites that did not 
face the main streets of the town (especially back lot 
features), delineation of dietary, occupational, and social 
status elements from the archeological assemblages, and defi- 
nition of the extent of military involvement in the domestic 
sector of town life (Deagan 1975:25-26). The research prior- 
ities defined in her report were explicitly incorporated in 
the grant proposal for the 1978-1979 archeological excavation 
of Lot 31 South (Fairbanks and Honerkamp 1978). 

Project Background 
Based on Deagan ' s recommendations, the Fairbanks and 
Honerkamp proposal listed a number of rather ambitious 
research objectives that were designed to meet the needs of 
the Park Service as well as to address problems of particular 
interest to the authors. These objectives were to be 
achieved through the complete excavation of a single 90 by 60 
feet (27.4 by 18.3 meters) colonial lot. Complete excavation 
of the site was considered necessary in order to delineate 
the site's boundaries, to identify back lot elements, and to 
locate and define areas associated with craft and domestic 
activities. In addition, total excavation would ensure the 
retrieval of an unambiguous representative sample of a single 



16 



colonial occupation which could be used as a basis for 
deriving hypotheses dealing with various aspects of 18th 
century life at Frederica. Since the site was assumed to 
have been occupied by known, historically documented 
colonists, it was through the documentary records that 
spatial, temporal, and social variables affecting the 
archeological record could be accounted for, and it was 
against this baseline of historical documentation that 
hypotheses could be formulated and tested. 

The original major research interest of the author was 
to formulate hypotheses concerning specific socioeconomic 
differences and similarities between the occupants of the 
Dobree, Hird, and Hawkins-Davison sites which could be tested 
through comparison of various classes of artifacts, including 
faunal remains. A preliminary attempt along these lines was 
made by the author using only faunal materials; documentary 
evidence was used to control for temporal and social vari- 
ables associated with the three sites (Honerkamp 1980). 
However, archeological and documentary analysis carried out 
after the Dobree Site field work revealed evidence neces- 
sitating major revisions to the research goals. These are 
discussed fully in subsequent chapters. 



CHAPTER II 

METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 



With the publication of Method and Theory in Historical 
Archeology (South 1977a), historical archeology has reached a 
watershed in the development of the methods upon which it is 
based. Although the controversy associated with South's 
"pattern recognition" approach as a viable research orienta- 
tion is sometimes acrimonious, it has at the same time pro- 
duced fertile ground for nurturing theoretical and method- 
ological constructs, and it has been found to be essential 
for stimulating the author's own consideration of an 
important and often neglected question in archeology: why 
are we interested in digging into the clutter of past 
cultures? It is with the hope of somehow attempting to 
answer this and other questions that the present study was 
undertaken . 

The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the theore- 
tical biases inherited from the author's mentors, teachers, 
and colleagues so that the reader can judge for him- or 
herself the costs and benefits of such biases to the results 
of the research. Following an overview of what is considered 
to be the primary theoretical orientations in historical 
archeology and the research implications inherent in them, my 
own views on the strengths and weaknesses of each will be 

17 



18 



presented. Finally, several broadly-stated problems derived 
from the theoretical discussion will be identified as the 
focus of the more specific research hypotheses presented in 
Chapter VII. 

Competing Paradigms in Historical Archeology 
Although historical archeologists are fond of pointing 
out the great strides that have been made in the theories, 
methods, and techniques associated with their field, there is 
nevertheless much disagreement among the practitioners of 
this "science" concerning specific aspects of these advances. 
Indeed, there is even disagreement on the categorization of 
historical archeology as a "science" at all, with or without 
the capital 's* (Binford 1972; Cleland and Fitting 1968; 
Dollar 1968; Flannery 1973; Fontana 1968; South 1977a, 1977b; 
Walker 1967, 197*0. Historical archeology is still methodo- 
logically and theoretically unstable, much as it has been 
since its inception. However, in recent years there has been 
a gradual emergence of two main paradigms that are usually 
characterized as being diametrically opposed to one another. 
Evidence that some methodological-theoretical battle lines 
have in fact been drawn is seen in the tendency of many 
archeologists to attach identifying (and slightly deni- 
grating) labels to the orientations of their less enlightened 
contemporaries in order to distinguish them from their own 
sensible approaches. This is certainly not new in arche- 
ology, but it seems to be more conspicuous now than it has 
been in the past. 



19 

The first approach, discernible in most of Stanley 
South's work, is referred to as the "pattern recognition" 
orientation. It is based on the quantification and com- 
parison of artifact types, groups, and classes among and 
between historic sites to define inter- and intrasite 
relationships of artifacts (i.e. "patterns") that are thought 
to have temporal, functional and/or behavioral significance 
(South 1977a, 1978). Implicitly South's methodology seems to 
stem from an anthropological perspective, but the guiding 
paradigm upon which it is based has never been clearly 
stated. The other approach has been labelled "historical- 
istic" by Schuyler (1978:1), or "particularistic" by South 
(1977a:8). Whatever the name might be, it refers to a 
philosophical approach that is usually associated with 
methodologies that are quite distinct from that employed by 
South and his adherents. South has also identified an 
offshoot of the particularistic school that seems to be 
proanthropology as well as interested in explanation: the 
"world viewers" (South 1979). Since the present author views 
South's orietation to be in part a reaction against the 
initial particularistic approach, it is this earlier 
theoretical orientation that will be examined first. As part 
of my own small contr i-but ion to the archeological literature 
devoted to the labelling of the theoretical approaches of 
other archeologists , the two versions of the particularistic 
school have been identified in this study as the "old" and 
"new" particularism. 



20 



Old Particularism 
Much of the early work in historical archeology centered 
on elite-occupant sites that were usually impressively large 
and ornate, historically famous or infamous (often as a 
result of bellicose events occurring there), or possessing 
some other "historically interesting" quality such as being 
the oldest or only example of a style of architecture 
(Fairbanks 1977). Not coincidentally , these types of sites 
were attractive to the historically-oriented and -trained 
researchers in the field, as well as to the agencies willing 
to fund historic site research. The combination of a narrow 
historicalist theoretical postition among even the anthropo- 
logically trained archeologists , along with the social and 
economic context in which they worked, resulted in an 
emphasis on a preservation-restoration approach which, 
according to Schuyler (1978:1), "reduced archeology to a 
supplemental technique in the service of architecture, narrow 
specific historical questions, and the National Park 
Service." Speaking as the herald for "pattern recognition," 
South characterizes particularistic archeology as emphasizing 

...individualistic analysis and synthesis. 
The paradigm (idea set) is idiographic (intensive 
study of an individual case) and particularistic 
(often characterized by an ant inomothet ic stance 
against the search for general laws) ...( (particular- 
istic archeologists)) are often implicitly scientific... 
while at the same time disdaining the use of the 
hypothetical-deductive method .... The particularistic 
approach has been accompanied by an antiscientif ic , 
antianthropology phenomenon. (South 1977a:8) 

For reasons discussed below, this orientation will be refer- 
red to as "Old Particularism." 



21 



Inherent in this approach, as both South and Schuyler 
point out, is an antipathy toward processual goals in 
archeology and a rejection of anthropology as it is applied 
to the study of historical archeology. The most prominent 
proponents of this view have been Ivor Noel Hume (1969a) and 
Ian Walker (1967, 1974), both British archeologi sts with 
training in history and the humanities, and Clyde Dollar 
(1968), a historian by training. Cleland and Fitting 
(1968:124-126) and Schuyler (1978:201) believe that these 
authors share a narrow view of what constitutes a science, 
and by extension archeology, which certainly is not shared by 
all historians or archeologi sts . Walker's assertion that 
"...historical archeology by definition relies on historical 
interpretation for explanation" (1974:168) is even less 
likely to be supported by historical archeologists . 
Anthropological questions, whether or not they dovetail with 
the research concerns of historians, will continue to be of 
central importance to many historic site researchers. Yet, 
as Harrington has recently observed (1979:75-76), a great 
many site reports — particularly contract reports--are devoid 
of any hint of historical or anthropological interpretation. 
Perhaps as a consequence of the early emphasis on site- 
specific reconstruction and restoration, a number of archeo- 
logists avoid asking any but the most facile questions about 
their data, and as a consequence end up producing intensive 
intrasite artifact-architecture studies which at best are 
descriptive catalogs and at worst are excercises in 



22 



psuedoscience (South 1977a:326). Meanwhile, historians 
conspicuously ignore the field of historical archeology- 
altogether (Harrington 1955; Schuyler 1977; Wilderson 1975), 
despite the fact that the research concerns of some 
historians and archeologists are becoming indistinguishable 
(Bloch 1968; Carson 1978; White 1969). 

At the risk of stating the obvious, systematic artifact 
studies and architectural reconstructions have always been 
and will continue to be important components of historical 
archeology. Without the further refinement of our method- 
ological tools that is afforded bv careful artifact studies, 
not to mention the funding support found in reconstruction 
oriented projects, advances in historic site research would 
not be possible. While recognizing its achievements and 
contributions, however, we should also realize that the 
limited scope and aims of particularistic archeology preclude 
it from achieving truly anthropological goals. 

This approach has been labelled as "Old Particularism" 
not only because it represents the initial theoretical 
orientation embraced by early historical archeologists, but 
also in order to differentiate it from the "world view" 
orientation that is particularistic but stems from an anthro- 
pological framework. This latter approach will be referred 
to as the "New Particularism." 

New Particularism 
The "world view" orientation in historical archeology is 
a relatively recent phenomenon, and if the papers presented 



23 



at the 1980 meetings of the Society for Historical Archeology 
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are any indication, it is a 
popular one as well. The best known work in this area has 
been that of James Deetz (1974, 1977) and Henry Glassie 
(1968, 1975). Both of these researchers take an approach to 
the study of material culture that emphasizes structural 
analysis and mentalistic interpretation of data. In his book 
In Small Things Forgotten Deetz is concerned with the 
systematic relationships of various aspects of material 
culture in the 17th through the 18th centuries in New England 
(1977). He traces the evolution of the form and function of 
ceramics, architecture, mortuary art, eating utensils, 
butchering practices, and furniture, among other things, and 
identifies major shifts in their use in England and the 
American Colonies. He attributes the presence of the 
cultural traditions and horizons that he defines to ideolo- 
gical forces, particularly a shift from a "medieval" to a 
"Georgian world view" that ultimately resulted from the 
intellectual ferment of the Renaissance. This cognitive 
model of material culture stems from Deetz ? s long-term 
interest in mentalistic processes and their potential for 
investigation by archeologists . For instance, the goal of 
discovering "mental templates" of the people who made and 
used artifacts was emphasized in his 1967 book, Invi tat ion to 
Archeology . Since that time Deetz apparently has recognized 
the futility of this approach in prehistoric archeology and 
has concentrated on adapting it to the field of historical 



24 

archeology, with its greatly expanded data base. In Small 
Things Forgotten is a convincing demonstration of the 
potential that the cognitive approach has for constructing 
models of cultural change. It is explicitly anthropological 
in outlook, it synthesizes and interprets written historical 
and archeological data, and it incorporates sound 
methodological principles from such sources as Willey and 
Phillips (1958) and Binford (1962a) in the interpretation of 
the data. 

Similarly, Glassie has applied a structural approach to 
the study of architecture in a temporally and spatially 
circumscribed area in Virginia (1975). His imaginative and 
exhaustive analysis of vernacular architectural forms was 
designed to explain diachronic change and continuity in folk 
housing as a function of the unconscious mental structures of 
the people that built the houses. According to Glassie, 
studying artifacts is the best way to discover how the minds 
of people operated over long periods of time; conversely, he 
thinks that this is an unnecessarily complicated and hence 
futile way for discovering the principles governing human 
behavior (1975:vii). It is precisely this attitude that 
makes the world view approach descriptive rather than 
explanatory in nature. Discovering how minds operated, 
reconstructing mind sets, and elucidating aspects of a 
Georgian world view does not explain the behavior resulting 
from the mental structures, mind sets, and world views. This 
concern with description and reconstruction is in my view the 



25 



principal element connecting the old and new particularism. 
Whereas the old particularism was largely atheoretical and 
rejected anthropological questions as a basis for doing 
historical archeology, the new version recognizes the 
essential importance of theory in archeology, and it is to 
anthropology that many of its practitioners turn for their 
theoretical constructs. Both approaches attempt to 
reconstruct something from the archeological and documentary 
data. In the former, it is the site that is reconstructed, 
while in the latter, it is the world view which created the 
site that is sought. The underlying factors that might 
account for the content, form, and function of the site (or 
the mind set) are not proposed or investigated. It is this 
failure to go beyond description that links both approaches 
to a particularistic paradigm. 

The most vocal critic of the new particularism has been 
Stanley South. He is disturbed by the explanatory short- 
comings that are associated with mind-set reconstructions and 
by the practical problems that must be faced in recon- 
structing world views from artifacts: 

If cognitive models or world views are the goal 
of the archeological research then a good way to 
begin would be to study the modal personality of 
living people and abstract their "world view" and 
define their "mind set." Theoretically then, we 
should be able to read in the different litera- 
ture highly sophisticated models based on ethno- 
graphic data for the Irish world view, the Black 
world view, the Scottish mind set... on and on ad 
infinitem . However, I see no mass of predictable 
ethnographic or ethno-archeological literature on 
such world views... To suggest that such models can 
be abstracted from the archeological data base when 
such has yet to be demonstrated from living human 



26 

populations, appears to me to be expecting a little 
((too)) much from the material data base of archeology... 
(South 1979:2) 

South's criticisms seem to be relevant. If well trained 
ethnographers, who are supposedly adept at recognizing emic 
and etic distinctions, cannot discern the world views of 
those they study, it would appear highly unlikely that 
archeologists would be able to successfully glean mind sets 
from studying the artifacts of extinct cultures. 

South views the present popularity of the cognitive 
approach with dismay since it distracts many archeologists 
from the goal of understanding cultural process. However, 
the appeal of the new particularism is not difficult to 
understand. In addition to the attractive theoretical and 
methodological characteristics that have already been 
discussed, there are other factors involved. Both Deetz and 
Glassie have presented eloquent and compelling reasons for 
doing archeology that seem to have struck a responsive chord 
in many of us. Echoing Ascher (1974), both strongly reject 
the elite-only emphasis of the Old Particularism in favor of 
what Charles Fairbanks has called the "archeology of the 
proletariat" (1978). Not only does this shift from the elite 
sites to the sites of the "common people" tremendously 
increase the number of sites to be dug, it also provides 
moral imperatives for digging them up. When Henry Glassie 
tells us that the written record is "...superficial and 
elitist--a tale of viciousness, a myth for the contemporary 
power structure," it is clearly the duty of archeologists, 



27 

particularly cognitive archeologi sts , to provide a humanistic 
counterpoint to the biased documentary data base (1977:29). 
In a world of shrinking research dollars and increasing 
skepticism toward the value of all social research, Glassie 
and Deetz have given historical archeologi sts an almost holy 
mission to accomplish and at the same time provided a 
forceful arguement against critics of the social sciences. 
Small wonder that the New Particularism is attractive to so 
many archeologists . 

Pattern Recognition 
South's approach, detailed in Method and Theory in 
Historical Archeology (1977a) and operational ized in 
different ways by a number of authors in Research Strategies 
in Historical Archeology (South 1977c), is based on 
quantitative analysis of artifacts, especially the derivation 
of frequency variations of artifact types, groups, and 
classes. Once this is accomplished, "patterns" can be 
recognized for intrasite, intersite, and temporal contexts. 
These patterns of artifact association (i.e., regular 
frequency variations in artifact types-classes-groups) are 
believed to have resulted from the patterned behavior of the 
site occupants. The basic regularity of the replicated 
patterns is then used as a reference by which variability in 
the archeological record can be measured. Using this method, 
South has defined a number of distinct patterns at British 
colonial sites. These include the Brunswick Pattern of 
Refuse Disposal, which measures the spatial distribution of 



28 



artifact classes and groups by comparing frequency 
distributions around dwellings; the Carolina and Frontier 
patterns, which are believed to monitor site function through 
comparison of the frequency relationships between artifact 
groups; and the Kitchen Pattern, which also monitors site 
function as indicated through comparison of artifact classes 
within the Kitchen artifact group (South 1977a, 1978). Using 
artifact assemblages from several domestic, military, and 
craft-oriented British colonial sites, the range of 
variability that can be expected for the frequency 
percentages of the artifact classes and groups are presented, 
along with the hypothesized function of each site. By 
establishing the normal variation that can be expected for 
each type of site, South hopes eventually to be able to 
determine the function of any British colonial site, 
including those for which no documentary information is 
available. The uniqueness of South's method lies in the 
insistence on complete quantification of artifact assemblages 
and a classification scheme that allows direct intersite 
comparisons to be made. By contrast Deetz's methods seem 
highly impressionistic (Schuyler 1977:113). 

In the opinion of the present author, South's method is 
believed to possess the potential to revolutionize the field 
of historical archeology, similar to the way in which Ameri- 
can prehistoric archeology was affected in the 1960s by Lewis 
Binford. South works with historic site data in a singular 
and original way. In so doing he gives primacy to the 



29 



archeological rather than the documentary record, and by 
necessity this results in anthropological rather than narrow 
historical interpretations. But, as is common with any 
revolutionary paradigm, there are problems associated with 
South's approach that must be resolved before it will gain 
overwhelming acceptance. The most serious one is that South 
has not provided a convincing explanation as to why the 
patterns that are defined occur. This lack of an explanatory 
component is probably why Schuyler refers to pattern 
recognition as "a form of structural-functional ism" 
(1980:200). Like Levi-Strauss , Glassie, and Deetz, South has 
done an exemplary job of description without accounting for 
the underlying causes of the phenomena described. Until this 
drawback is overcome, the revolutionary potential of South's 
methodology cannot be realized. 

On a technical level, there are also questions 
concerning the adequacy of the samples used by South in 
delineating artifact patterns. Since most of his excavations 
were oriented toward locating architectural features in order 
to meet the requirements of the sponsoring agencies involved 
in each project, almost all of his artifact samples were 
recovered inside or directly adjacent to structural remains. 
In view of the reliance placed by South on Michael B. 
Schiffer's "behavioral archeology" concepts (Schiffer 1972, 
1976, 1977), it is surprising that ruin-associated artifacts 
are assumed to be representative of the entire site, 
especially considering Fairbanks' (1977) and South's own 



30 

(1977a) observations concerning differential refuse disposal 
practices at colonial sites. This assumption may be valid, 
but this certainly needs to be demonstrated before it is 
accepted. If it is not valid, then neither are the patterns. 
Other less serious criticisms of South's pattern recognition 
are mentioned in reviews of Method and Theory in Historical 
Archeology (Chance 1977; Honerkamp 1977b). 

Eclectic Approach 
Another approach used by historical archeologists with 
distressing tenacity is to avoid thinking about theory at all 
and simply excavate sites as carefully as possible. The 
adherents of this approach argue that commitment to specific 
research strategies will invariably result in the collection 
of limited types and amounts of data which have relevance 
only to the specific research strategies employed. This 
position, which is in itself a research strategy with its own 
set of unspecified data limitations, is common in 
anthropology and archeology and has been referred to by 
Harris as "eclecticism" ( 1 979 : x , 287-3 1 4 ) . Archeologists 
employing this supposedly "open-minded" approach are really 
only excavation technicians, and their meticulous site 
reports usually lack interpretation as well as usefulness to 
other archeologists or historians. This in itself 
illustrates the truthfulness of Glassie's observation that 
"the scholar who believes that he works without theory, works 
with bad theory" (1977:9). 



31 

Theoret ical -Me thodo logical Posi t ion 
The manner in which archeological research is conducted 
relates directly to the theoretical-methodological position 
that the archeologist holds, including the archeologist who 
rejects theory (Cleland and Fitting 1968; Glassie 1977; 
Watson et al. 1971). Although the approaches outlined above 
are by no means exhaustive of those held by historical 
archeologists , they are thought to be representative of a 
majority of the archeologists actively engaged in historic 
site research. My own orientation is based on the foregoing 
consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each 
approach, especially as they can be applied to the study of 
the archeological record at Fort Frederica. This study 
applies the structural-functionalist method to interpretation 
of data within a positivist, materialist theoretical 
framework. Neither an in-depth description of the material 
remains recovered at Frederica, nor a historical- 
archeological chronicle, nor an interpretation of the world 
view of the site's occupants will be attempted, for reasons 
discussed above. At the same time, the author is not unaware 
of the needs of the sponsor concerning traditional site 
interpretation goals. Accordingly, the material remains used 
to derive archeological evidence of past activities and 
behavior are described in more detail than is customary in 
pattern recognition studies, and reconstructed or complete 
artifacts are identified and illustrated. In this sense, the 
present study is particularistic. No attempt will be made to 



32 

describe a nontestable mind set at Frederica because, even if 
this could be accomplished, it would not explain the 
archeological record. However, the level of analysis 
reported in this paper should be sufficiently detailed to 
allow a cognitive study to be made by some future New 
Particularist . Although the pattern recognition approach is 
seen to be similarly incomplete without reference to the 
underlying causal factors that could account for the 
patterns, it is felt to be a necessary methodological step in 
attempting a coherent explanation of the British colonial 
cultural system by allowing intersite comparisons of data to 
be made. 

Probably the best illustration of the potential that the 
application of the pattern recognition method has in 
historical archeology is found in Kenneth Lewis' study of the 
frontier model in archeology (1976, 1977). Lewis 
demonstrates the usefulness of South's method when it is 
combined with processual archeology. He first outlines the 
general characteristics of a frontier model on the basis of 
past geographical studies. He then makes several predictive 
statements (hypotheses) concerning the process of frontier 
change and tests these against the data recovered from 
eighteenth century Camden, a frontier community in South 
Carolina. From this he is able to draw several conclusions 
concerning the adaptations of colonizing societies to 
frontier conditions. The utility of this approach for the 
study of the frontier town of Frederica is obvious. 



33 

In summary, the theoretical position taken here is one 
that derives in part from the pattern recognition approach of 
Stanley South. Methodologically, the "structural-functional" 
orientation with its reliance on artifact quantification will 
be followed, but the shortcomings of this approach are 
recognized. In relation to the study of archeological 
evidence, a positivistic stance is taken which rejects the 
ideational basis of the world view approach in favor of a 
materialist explanation of culture (Harris 1977, 1979). The 
systematic nature of the archeological record is assumed, as 
is the ability of the archeologist to discern, through the 
formulation and testing of appropriate research hypotheses, 
the systematic cultural and natural processes that account 
for the archeological record. Before this is attempted, 
however, the data base must be defined. The data base at 
Frederica is believed to reflect a British colonizing 
adaptation to specific frontier conditions. The goal of the 
present study will be to identify and explain components of 
this frontier adaptation. The following chapters are devoted 
to the definition of the historical-archeological data base. 



CHAPTER III 
RESEARCH DESIGN 

Any study of the structure, function, and nature of the 
frontier process must necessarily be regional in scope (Lewis 
1976:157). The frontier system at Frederica will be investi- 
gated through the use of documentary information pertaining 
to the region and town during the 18th century, and through 
combined documentary and archeological data from the three 
sites excavated: the Hawkins-Davison Site (Cate 1956; Deagan 
1972; Fairbanks 1956), the Hird Site (Honerkamp 1975, 1977a), 
and the Dobree Site. As this last site is reported here for 
the first time, it will be examined in more detail than 
either of the other two. 

Concepts and Definitions 
Since the frontier phenomenon is identified as the focus 
of investigation, it must necessarily be delimited. Using 
the work of geographers such as Casagrande et al. (1964), 
Kristof (1959), Weigert et al. (1957), and Hudson (1969), 
Lewis defines the frontier as a region in which the dispersal 
of settlement into a new territory takes place. It also 
includes the zone separating settled and unsettled areas of a 
territory which lies within effective control of the state 
(Lewis 1977:145). The frontier appears with the first 
permanent settlement and ceases to exist with the leveling 

34 



35 



off of settlement growth and the stabilization of settlement 

patterning. The frontier is directly dependent on the trade 

and communications network that is established with the 

already settled origin area. Frontier settlements 

...reflect distribution of personnel and materials 
in the most efficient way to permit the integra- 
tion of activities in a sparsely settled area. 
The limits of the exchange network at any given 
time effectively mark the boundaries of the area 
of colonization. (Lewis 1977:154) 

The five conditions characterizing the frontier model are: 

1) prolonged contact/continuity maintained between the 
colonists and the parent society; 

2) loss of complexity due to attenuation of networks 
with the homeland; 

3) settlement pattern more geographically dispersed 
than the homeland unless temporarily impeded by 
restrictive conditions; 

4) dispersed frontier towns serving as the nucleus for 
social/political/economic/religious activities and 
as a terminus for the transportation network link- 
ing the area of colonization with the homeland; and 

5) temporal and spatial change, i.e., the pattern of 
temporal growth is replicated spatially, with set- 
tlements closest to the moving frontier represent- 
ing the earliest stages of frontier development. As 
the frontier expands, early settlements experience 
marked changes in population density and settlement 
pattern, and eventually become integrated at the 
national level. 

As with Lewis' study, two broad questions concerning the 

cultural and temporal characteristics for the three sites at 

Frederica will be investigated. Once these parameters are 

established, it will be possible to test hypotheses 

concerning the form and spatial extent of the occupations at 

Frederica, the functions of the sites in question, the 

distribution of archeological materials having behavioral 



36 



significance (especially with reference to South's recent 
work), and resource utilization in an 18th century frontier 
environment. Unlike Lewis' study, which was based on a large 
stratified unaligned random sample from the entire town of 
Camden, the sample from Frederica consists of three 
intensively excavated sites. Since only a small proportion 
of the total archeological variability at Frederica has been 
sampled, inferences concerning the frontier process as an 
intersite phenomenon must be made with caution. A brief 
summary of the research questions addressed in this study is 
given below. These questions will be presented in greater 
detail in Chapter VII. 

The cultural-ethnic affiliation of the sites can be 
determined through reference to documentary and archeological 
evidence. As will be seen in the next chapter, documentary 
information indicates that the cultural affiliation of 
Frederica as a whole, and the three sites in particular, was 
primarily British. This assumption is tested in Chapter VII 
with respect to the ceramic assemblages at each site. 
Briefly stated, the economic ties between Frederica and 
Britain, and by extension the cultural affiliation of the 
town, should be reflected in the ceramic artifacts associated 
with most sites in the town. The ceramic assemblages from 
each site should therefore be characterized by (1) a 
predominance of ceramics manufactured in Britain, (2) a 
variety of British ceramic types that mirrors the diversity 
of types found at other British sites, and (3) based on 



37 



findings from other British colonial sites, the occurence of 
a predictable amount of re-exported foreign-made ceramic 
types such as Oriental porcelain and Westerwald stoneware. 

The temporal period of the town occupation is 
established in Chapter IV as extending from 1736 to circa 
1750 for most sites in the town. However, the chronological 
position of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites 
cannot be determined satisfactorily from the documentary 
evidence alone. Temporally sensitive artif acts--ceramics and 
white clay pipes--are used to estimate the occupation dates 
for the sites. A lack of congruence between the mean 
occupation dates derived from the documentary, ceramic, and 
pipestem materials is used to interpret the site occupation 
sequences as well as the behavioral characteristics of the 
occupants . 

Site form and function are investigated with reference 
to the frontier model. Settlement patterning at the town 
level is expected to reflect specific demographic, political, 
and economic factors that were present in the South Carolina 
and Georgia frontier areas. This should be evinced by 
distinctive settlement patterns for Camden and Frederica. 
For instance, at Camden a combination of abundant land, low 
population density, and the absence of a need for concerted 
defense against a state-level power would result in a more 
dispersed and uneven town structure than at Frederica. Both 
documentary and archeological data from each town are used to 
contrast the settlement patterns. Adaptive pressures 



38 

affecting the town structure should also be reflected in the 
structure of the town's components, which in the case of 
Frederica would be the freeholder lots. Some implications of 
this hypothesis are (1) there should be evidence of cluster- 
ing of features within the lots (depending on the intensity 
of occupation at each site), (2) evidence indicating attempts 
at maximizing the trash disposal function of certain areas of 
the lot through reuse of subsurface features should be 
present, (3) efficient use of subsurface features for the 
disposal of faunal remains possessing objectionable odors 
should be seen at the sites, and (4) there should be evidence 
of an emphasis on demarcation of lot boundaries. 

The question of site function is investigated by compar- 
isons of domestic and nondomestic activity by-products at 
each site. Quantification of the artifact assemblages in 
terms of South's ( 1 977a : 92- 1 02 ) type-ware-class-group 
classification is carried out in order to define site 
function as it is reflected by the empirical artifact 
profiles associated with each site (see Chapter V). Fred- 
erica, as a planned frontier community, should show archeo- 
logical evidence of domestic activities as well as craft, 
marketing, small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing 
activities. Due to the emphasis placed on crafts and trades 
by the organizers and sponsors of the colonization effort at 
Frederica, nondomestic activities should be more in evidence 
at Frederica than at Camden. Besides the comparison of 
quantitative artifact profiles, it is also possible to use 



3^ 



the results of qualitative or presence-absence analysis to 
determine site function. This is done for the artifact 
assemblages from all three sites at Frederica, with 
particular attention given to the by-products of a small- 
scale manufacturing operation (a forge) that were recovered 
from the Dobree Site. 

The nearly complete excavation of the Dobree Site has 
resulted in a data base that is well suited for testing 
hypotheses concerning British colonial refuse disposal 
behavior. South has defined a pattern of artifact 
distributions at British colonial sites which he has 
designated as the Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal. This 
pattern monitors secondary and primary deposition of refuse 
as it occurs in and around colonial structures (South 
1977a:48). However, portions of the sites used by South to 
derive the Brunswick Pattern constitute a highly limited 
sample in that they are all oriented around structural 
foundations and their directly adjacent areas. Virtually no 
testing of peripheral site areas is evident in South's work 
( 1 977a : 50-76 ) . At the Dobree Site graphic representation of 
the frequency distributions of several artifact classes and 
groups is used to test the applicability of the Brunswick 
Pattern at Frederica. 

Finally, a subsistence model based on traditional 
English foodways is defined in Chapter VII and compared with 
the zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. A traditional 
pattern of meat consumption in early Georgia that mirrors the 



40 

European pattern is expected to contrast sharply with a 
pattern of resource utilization that reflects adaptive 
responses to frontier conditions. 

Of central importance in testing the hypotheses 
mentioned above is the definition of the temporal and spatial 
aspects of the particular sites investigated, as well as the 
general historical context of the town and region. This is 
undertaken in the following chapter through the combined use 
of documentary and archeological resources. 



CHAPTER IV 
DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND 

In this chapter the historical context of Frederica as a 
frontier settlement, and of the Hawkins-Davison, Hird, and 
Dobree sites as components of such a settlement, will be 
developed. The concern here will be with clarifying some of 
the characteristics of the frontier adaptation in the region 
and relating them to Frederica and the three sites 
investigated. On a more specific level, an attempt will be 
made to establish temporal and spatial control for the town 
and sites. For regional and local background information of 
a more general nature, any of the numerous publications 
dealing with Georgia and Frederica history and archeology 
should be consulted (Cate 1943, 1956; Coleman 1976; Davis 
1976; Fairbanks 1956; Honerkamp 1975, 1977a; Ivers 197^; 
Manucy 1962; Reese 1963, 1969; Saye 1943). 

Historical Context; Georgia 
Georgia was established in 1733 as the last British 
proprietary colony in America and as the last to be founded 
by settlers coming directly from Europe. By that time South 
Carolina had developed sufficiently in economic importance 
through its plantation exports and British-Indian trade that 
expansion west and south from the settled coastal areas was 
officially recognized as necessary for the consolidation and 

41 



42 

security of the planting and trading enterprises (Brown 
1963:2; Coleman 1972:169-170). In 1730 the royal Govenor of 
South Carolina submitted a detailed plan for expanding the 
Carolina frontier which was enthusiastically endorsed by the 
Board of Trade. The Board added the stipulation that two 
settlements be located on the Altamaha River on land that had 
long been claimed by both Britain and Spain. By combining an 
economic-military expansionist policy with a philanthropic 
movement in England aimed at making productive colonists of 
the mother country's many poor and insolvent subjects, the 
founding of Georgia seemingly accomplished three objectives 
at once. First, it protected the economically valuable 
Carolina colony by providing a military buffer against 
Spanish or French incursions and by reducing the threat of 
slave rebellions on the Carolina plantations. Second, it 
expanded the frontier trade and plantation networks that were 
so essential to the mercantilistic economy envisioned for the 
colonies by the Board of Trade. Third, it helped relieve the 
mother country of a substantial domestic burden, the 
unemployed and poor of London and other cities (Reese 1963:8- 
9; Coleman 1976:9-13). Thus it was the "unfortunate poor," 
many of whom were supported by the Trust charity, who 
accompanied James Oglethorpe to the new colony in 1733. 

The frontier town of Savannah, located near the mouth of 
the Savannah River, became the nexus of social, political, 
and economic life in early Georgia. The settlement was 
positioned on a major river linking the piedmont with the 



43 

coast. Within a few years after its founding, a number of 
small military and domestic settlements extending along the 
Savannah River and southern coast were established. The main 
military settlement was Fort Frederica while the most 
important trading town was Augusta. Savannah soon became the 
center of a land and water transportation network that 
developed into the hinterland, although until the 1760s 
Charleston remained the principal entrepot from which English 
merchandise was transshipped to Georgia (Davis 1976:52-54). 

Initially the system of land distribution in Georgia was 
explicitly designed to ensure a dispersed settlement pattern. 
In the interests of military security, a man-land ratio of 
one male to every fifty acres was established for land 
grants. "Gentlemen" were allowed up to 500 acres on the 
condition that they bring 10 male servants to the colony at 
their own expense. Once land was granted, its inheritance 
and sale were severely restricted. Large individual 
landholdings were prohibited under this arrangement in the 
belief that the colony would instead be populated by numerous 
small-plot farmers who would make up a strong standing 
militia; slaves were prohibited for the same reasons. As 
Reese (1963), Coleman (1976), and others have emphasized, 
this slave-free agrarian system of land division discouraged 
the establishment of productive plantations with their high 
capital and labor investments. The flexibility associated 
with the private, large scale, economically oriented 
companies that had successfully established colonial 



411 



settlements elsewhere in America was precluded under 
Georgia's philanthropic charter. Until the land and labor 
restrictions were removed by the royal administration in 
1750, Georgia's frontier settlements remained unstable in 
terms of population, economy, and settlement patterning. 
Once a reliable economy based on rice, indigo, and marine 
stores became established, frontier towns such as Savannah 
began to stabilize and take on increasingly complex 
communication, transportation, and commercial functions. By 
1773, 25 ocean-going vessels were owned by Georgians (Wright 
1873:175) and many were offloading at Savannah, which had 
largely replaced Charleston as the major sea port linking the 
colony with Britain. 

From the documentary information reviewed thus far, it 
can be seen that the conditions proposed by Lewis as being 
necessary for the development of a frontier are fully 
satisfied (1977:160-164). Briefly stated, these are: 

1) Georgia, located on the periphery of a prev- 
iously settled area, was physically occupied 

by an intrusive colonizing society (Great Britain). 

2) The intrusive European society possessed a highly 
developed state level of organization. The 
presence of a concomitant legitimizing force 
necessary to maintain the logistical support of the 
colonization effort is also apparent. Frederica, 

as a fortified frontier settlement and as the staging 
point for a major military campaign against Spain in 
1740, exemplifies this state level legitimization of 
force (Ivers 1974). 

3) In the second quarter of the 18th century, external 
sociocultural barriers to expansion consisted only 
of a competing state level society in St. Augustine, 
Florida. Decimated by internecine warfare, slave 
raids, and European diseases, the coastal Guale 
Indians had been removed to Spanish missions in 



Florida by 1686. By the 1730s only sporadic con- 
tact with remnant inland Creek groups occured in 
the Frederica area (Gannon 1965; Ivers 1974). 
These groups posed little if any competition for 
resources . 

4) Georgia was amenable to subsistence and commercial 
exploitation. This was conclusively demonstrated 
with the removal of land and labor restrictions by 
the royal administration. Natural barriers pre- 
venting access to different parts of the frontier 
were absent, as indicated by the maintenance of 
trade and communication routes during the politi- 
cally and economically unstable proprietary period 



Historical Context: Frederica 
Shortly after Savannah was established, a string of 
military outposts was built along the coast as far south as 
Fort George Island, Florida. The center of this defensive 
network was the fortified settlement of Frederica. Founded 
in 1736, the town originally was occupied by 40 civilian 
families, but by 1738 a military regiment was permanently 
stationed there. Eighty-four house lots were laid out within 
the walls of the town and a corresponding number of 50-acre 
farming plots were located in the surrounding countryside; 
every freeholder received one of each. The town was divided 
into a North and South Ward by the main east-west street 
(Broad Street) extending from the town entrance to the fort 
(Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4). Besides the 600-man Regiment, 
Frederica's inhabitants included various craftsmen and 
skilled workers, but as was true of the rest of Georgia's 
population at the time, farmers, husbandmen, and laborers 
were in short supply (Coleman 1976:20-22; Coulter and Saye 
1949). 



46 

The military orientation of the town is clearly- 
discernible in the settlement structure. Unlike Camden, 
which was an unplanned frontier town founded for and 
supported by economic considerations, Frederica was designed 
as a compact, defensible settlement containing a high density 
population capable of bearing arms. The tightly regulated 
settlement pattern, based on military necessity, accounts for 
the circumscribed layout of the town as compared to Camden. 
Frederica's row pattern of lots more closely resembles the 
contiguous arrangement of structures in an English market 
town than the uneven dispersal of structures at Camden (Lewis 
1977: 179) . 

The town's main economic activities are of importance in 
establishing some of the major characteristics of the 
frontier adaptation. This topic has been of interest to 
historians as well as archeologists at Frederica. Although 
the settlers were expected to become self-sufficient through 
subsistence farming and by practicing their crafts and 
trades, their initial material needs were supplied by the 
Trust. Upon arriving at Frederica the head of each household 
was supplied with a year's provision of food, clothing, 
tools, and kitchenware. By 1738, when the charity period was 
to end, most of the settlers were unable to support 
themselves and had to depend on weekly "advances" of food 
(Manucy 1962:54,100). This continued for a number of years, 
for only sporadic success at farming was ever achieved by 



a 7 



Frederica's inhabitants and craft activities were apparently 
not frequently practiced (see discussion below). 

The Trustees gave specific instructions concerning the 
construction of dwellings, which were to be built in the 
Georgian style and to measure at least 16 by 20 feet (Candler 
1904-37:XXXIV,288) . At Frederica the documentary and 
archeological evidence gives a fairly clear picture of the 
types of houses built by the colonists. A contemporary 
visitor to the town mentioned "...some houses built entirely 
of Brick, some of Brick and Wood, some few of Tappy-Work, but 
most of the meaner sort of Wood only" (Jones 1878:122). 
Archeological excavations support this description. Most of 
the inhabitants built "common freeholder" houses which Manucy 
describes as timber framed clapboard huts (1960:20). 
Architectural variability as a function of socioeconomic 
status seems to be evident at Frederica. Timber frame 
structures were the most economical and easiest to build, and 
by far made up the majority of residences. Tabby and brick 
houses, which were more secure but entailed much higher costs 
in labor and materials than their wooden counterparts, were 
selected by the wealthier colonists (Manucy 1960:20-23). 
There is also some indication of a correlation between lot 
location and type of house, with the brick and tabby examples 
more commonly located near the fort or facing Broad Street. 
Archeological evidence of wooden houses has yet to be 
recorded and remains a high research priority. 



Most authors emphasize the overall importance of the 

Regiment in the town economy. The civilian sector quickly 

became oriented toward and dependent on the military payroll, 

either by providing goods or services through the full time 

practice of crafts and trades, or by engaging in the tavern 

trade and practicing crafts on a part time basis, if at all. 

This "artificial prosperity," as Davis calls it (1976:61), is 

indicated by contemporary descriptions of the civilians 

engaged in "selling to the Camp" and "keeping publick Houses" 

(Reese 1973:8, 7*0. Except for early attempts by a small 

minority of the town's more industrious residents, farming 

was never an important activity on either a subsistence or 

cash crop level. A 1745 letter from John Terry to the 

Trustees of the colony is informative concerning the role of 

farming and other occupations in the community at that time. 

In his letter he complains about the 

...badness of the Land in Regard to the Expces. 
attending the Clearing of it So, that the few & 
very few inhabitants that are here do Not go on 
planting And Neither Are they able to go Upon 
Such an Expensive Undertakins, All they Do is to 
build houses on their town Lott, wch. turns to a 
very good Accot. to them By Letting or Selling of 
them to the officers, And hiring of them for Stores 
to Merchts. Believe me My Lords & Gentlemen, these 
Are the Improuvemts. Made or makg. 
(Candler 1915:401-402) 

This letter echoes the sentiments expressed five years 

earlier by George Whitfield when he remarked that "Frederica 

is wholly kept up by the Soldiery & that too I fear by their 

Intemperance. Very few as I could hear of intended planting 

any Corn..." (Phillips 1947:104). Clearly the economic 



49 



endeavors of Frederica's inhabitants were limited to a narrow 
range of activities that focussed on servicing and supplying 
the regiment. Thus a loss of complexity resulting not only 
from attenuation of networks with the homeland but also from 
a highly restricted economy is indicated by the documentary 
data . 

General Temporal-Demographic Parameters 
Through numerous documentary references a terminus post 
quern of February 1736 has been established for the colonial 
occupation at Frederica. Determination of an end date for 
the settlement is more difficult due to the erratic 
fluctuations in population that characterized Frederica's 
history. Most authors emphasize a severe reduction in the 
domestic population as a result of and immediately following 
the departure of the Regiment in 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Jones 
1878:124-125; Reese 1969:69-71). Indirect evidence of the 
town's dissolution is seen by Reese in the closing of the 
town storehouse in 1751 due to a lack of customers (1969:70). 
In 1758 a fire "...wasted nearly all of the town which time 
had spared," presumably because no one was around to put it 
out (Stevens 1847:446). Contemporary accounts, including one 
by Royal Governor John Reynolds in 1755, give the impression 
of a town "in Ruins," and sporadic attempts to revive 
Frederica for military or economic purposes during the last 
half of the 18th century were unsuccessful (Jones 1 878 : 1 26- 
136). Small military detachments were stationed there 
through the American Revolution and half-hearted efforts at 



50 

repairing the military structures were occasionally made. 
William Bartram, viewing Frederica in 1774, mentioned that 
what had once been "a very considerable Town" was "now almost 
in ruins" (Bartram 1943:145), while in 1839 Fanny Kemble 
portrayed the town as a collection of rose-covered ruins with 
only two standing houses (1961:131). Small numbers of 
families continued to live and farm in the Frederica area 
into the middle of the twentieth century (Cate 1926:37, 
1956:204; Lovell 1932:272-273). 

The foregoing evidence indicates that the bulk of 
Frederica's population was absent by 1750, scarcely 15 years 
after its establishment. However, a review of other 
documents suggests that the occupation span of many of the 
nonmilitary residents was considerably less than 15 years. 
The list of Georgia settlers compiled by the Earl of Egmont, 
first President of the Trustees for Establishing the Colony 
of Georgia in America, reveals that, of the 63 colonial 
households or individuals who were assigned lots at 
Frederica, 24 were either "Dead, Quitted, or Run Away" after 
five years in the colony; for many, only two years of 
frontier life was enough (Coulter and Saye 1949). This 
figure is derived from an extremely limited sample, i.e., 
only those settlers for whom Egmont had some information, and 
would undoubtedly be higher if a systematic study were made 
of all of Frederica's documented inhabitants. Underscoring 
the findings from Egmont's List are the frequent complaints 
and sometimes dismal descriptions of frontier life that were 



5 1 



voiced by many of Georgia's inhabitants (see Candler 1904- 
37:1,256-345, XXII, 17, XX, 183-184; Reese 1973:47,106,294- 
295,297) . 

The present author feels there is a need for increased 

internal criticism of secondary documentary references 

dealing with this and other aspects of Frederica's past. 

Frederica is commonly characterized as a thriving community 

of artisans and craftsmen that prospered by serving the 

Regiment until 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Coleman 1976:141; Reese 

1969:47). The town population supposedly reached its peak of 

over 1000 soldiers and civilians in the early 1740s, a figure 

that should be considered controversial in view of highly 

contradictory contemporary estimates (Candler 1904- 

37:VIII,488, XXIV, 140-1 4 1 ; Reese 1973: 1 1 1 ). Adverse 

descriptions of Frederica's conditions cannot simply be 

dismissed as the machinations of "Clamorous Malcontents." At 

the same time that Frederica was said to be in its economic 

heyday, the rest of Georgia was apparently experiencing hard 

times, as summarized by Coleman: 

From 1737 through 1747 there was decline in the 
colony. This period saw the closing of the 
Trustees store ((in Savannah)), the objections 
of the malcontents, and the Spanish War. Immi- 
gration slowed, people left, and population 
actually declined. Charitable contributions to 
the Trustees declined to almost nothing, and 
the colony was kept going only by Parlimentary 
grants totaling some L88,000 during the decade. 
The year 1740 was undoubtedly the low point 
economically in the colony's history. It was 
during this decade that the inadequacy of many 
of the charity colonists for a frontier area 
became clear. (Coleman 1976:142) 



52 

What seems to be generally ignored or underestimated in 
historical studies of Frederica is that the settlement was 
characterized by an extremely high turnover rate for the 
inhabitants. The emphasis that some historians have given to 
the number and diversity of crafts and skills represented at 
Frederica is the result of a synchronic interpretation of a 
diachronic phenomenon of population replacement. In other 
words, the historical interpretation was derived from a 
listing of all craft specialists over a span of time, rather 
than from those present at any one time. Reese's contention 
that a list of the names of Frederica's settlers "could be 
extended to include practically every trade that a pioneer, 
frontier community needed" may be correct (1969:47), but the 
accompanying assumption that all these essential craftsmen 
were living in Frederica at the same time cannot be supported 
by the documentary evidence. 

The effects that this high rate of population 
replacement might have on the archeological record vary. 
Most sites at Frederica can be assumed to have been abandoned 
prior to 1750. Some site assemblages can be expected to 
reflect single residence occupations of short duration or 
multicomponent occupations of various durations. These 
should contrast in discernible ways with a small number of 
sites with long duration (eight to ten years or more) single 
components. Intrusive 19th and 20th century components 
should also be present at a small number of the colonial 
sites . 



53 



Spatial Parameters 

Rarely has the utility of integrated archeological and 
documentary research been better demonstrated than at 
Frederica. Fairbanks' excavation of the Hawkins-Davison 
house was based on documentary information provided by the 
late Margaret Davis Cate, a coastal Georgia historian who 
devoted much of her life to the historical research of 
Frederica. The identification and discovery of the Hawkins- 
Davison common wall on the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 
of the South Ward allowed the archeologists to relate the 
colonial lot layout to Frederica's present topography (Cate 
1956; Fairbanks 1956). 

Of considerable interest to many researchers at 
Frederica has been the spatial configuration of the town. 
Begining with Cate's and Fairbanks' early research, every 
excavation undertaken or sponsored by the National Park 
Service has incorporated into its research design some 
emphasis on the spatial delineation of the town lot locations 
and boundaries. Lot sizes have been reliably established 
through the use of information obtained from 18th century 
documents and maps (Auspourger 1736; Miller 1796; Moore 
1840:82; Stacy 1784) combined with archeological verification 
(Fairbanks 1956:225). Estimates of the size of the various 
colonial streets and alleys, which are particularly important 
for determining the locations of lots that do not face Broad 
Street, are more problematic. The 1796 Miller map (Figure 4- 
1) shows specific street-alley widths that contrast with 



55 




Moore's contemporary account and the dimensions listed on the 
1736 Auspourger map. Fairbanks found no direct evidence of 
Broad Street during his excavations and attempts by Shiner 
(1958a) and Moore (1958) to determine the width of Cross 
Street were also unsuccessful. Using the archeological 
evidence of foundations uncovered at the Hawkins-Davison and 
Lot 1 North sites, Fairbanks concluded that Broad Street was 
75 feet wide (22.9 meters), as shown in the Auspourger map. 
However, the alley to the south of the Hawkins-Davison site 
was found to be slightly more than 14 feet wide (4.4 meters) 
which is in accordance with the Miller map. A summary of the 
information on street and lot dimensions shows some 
concordance, as indicated in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions, Frederica. 

Fai rbanks ' 

Auspourger ( 1736) Miller ( 1796) Excavation ( 1956) 
Broad Street 75 feet 82 feet 75 feet 

Cross Street 30 feet 32 feet 

East-West Streets 22 feet 23 feet 

Alleys 16 feet 14,17 feet 14 feet 

Town Lots 60 X 90 feet 60 X 90 feet 60 X 90 feet 

Thus, the location of anv lot at Frederica theoretically can 
be found by measuring the appropriate distances from the 
Hawkins-Davison common wall. Since direct archeological 
evidence of Frederica's streets has yet to be uncovered and 
documentary sources are not in complete agreement with each 



57 

other or with the field calculations of street dimensions, 
locational information on lot and street placement remains a 
high priority for any excavation at Frederica. Lots not 
adjacent to Broad Street are of particular concern since 
possible errors made in measuring their locations may be 
compounded with increasing distance from the Hawkins-Davison 
base line. Variations induced by the surveying techniques 
used in 1736 could also contribute to inaccurate determin- 
ations. Despite these drawbacks it is assumed that the 
approximate location of any lot can be found using the 
documentary-archeological evidence outlined above. 

The Hawkins-Davison Site 
The documentary record pertaining to this site has been 
presented fully by Cate (1956), Deagan (1972), and Fairbanks 
(1956). A brief synopsis of their work will be given in 
order to indicate some of the temporal, spatial, and social 
parameters associated with the site. Thomas Hawkins has been 
positively identified as the owner of Lot 1 South. He, his 
wife, and two servants arrived at Frederica in 1736 and 
apparently left the settlement in 1743, although an ambiguous 
reference given by John Terry in 1745 suggests a later date 
of departure (Candler 1904-37:1,462, XXIV, 402). Despite 
coming to Georgia "at the Trustees' expense," Hawkins seems 
to have held a relatively high socio-economic status among 
the town's inhabitants. He was employed as the Regiment 
surgeon, town apothecary-doctor, and Bailiff for Frederica. 
He lived in one of the most impressive residences in the 



53 



town, a three story home built of bricks. Hawkins owned a 
large "plantation" on a nearby island and possessed a number 
of cattle (Candler 1 904-37 : V , 500 ) . A petition for his 
property in 1767 and 1768 suggests that his house was not 
reoccupied after his departure but this is unlikely given its 
expensive construction. 

Like Thomas Hawkins, Samuel Davison came to Frederica in 
1736 on the charity of the Trust. The family, consisting of 
Davison, his wife and their three children resided at Lot 2 
South in an expensive brick and tabby house which shared a 
wall (on the lot line) with the Hawkins house. Trained as a 
chairman, Davison held positions as Constable, Searcher of 
Ships, and Overseer of the Trustee's Servants, although his 
main livelihood was in running a tavern in his home. He made 
a vigorous attempt at farming, at least during his first few 
years in the colony. By virtue of his expensive housing and 
contemporary comments on his industrious nature, Davison can 
also be assumed to have held a high socioeconomic status 
relative to other civilians in the town. In a 1741 letter he 
was listed as having "20 head of Cattle, servants, 2 or 3 
carts, 8 horses..." (Candler 1 904-37 : V , 50 1 ) , but the family 
left for South Carolina in that year. Documentary evidence 
of a later occupation on his property has not been found, but 
it is unlikely that one of the best houses in Frederica would 
have remained unused for long in the 1740s. 



59 



The Hird Site 
Documentary background on the Hird Site has been 
presented by Honerkamp (1975, 1977a). Thomas Hird, his wife, 
and three children came to Georgia in 1736 at Trust expense. 
According to the list compiled by the Earl of Egmont, Hird 
was a dyer who resided at Lot 12 North. As shown by the 
Miller Map, this would indicate a lot position in the 
northeast section of the town (see Figure U-1). According to 
the documents, Hird may have engaged in dyeing, brewing, and 
livestock raising, but there is definite evidence that he 
served as town Constable, lay preacher, and farmer exemplar . 
He also made frequent business trips to Savannah and 
Charleston. His socioeconomic position in the town, 
especially with respect to Hawkins and Davison, is difficult 
to determine. Although Honerkamp has interpreted the 
documentary-archeological information as indicating a 
slightly higher socioeconomic level for Hird (1980), this 
interpretation is open to question. Contemporary accounts 
concerning Hird's industrious nature and material 
improvements, when combined with evidence of his considerable 
occupational endeavors, support the assumption of a 
relatively high status position in the town. His long term 
occupation at Frederica (12 years) can also be interpreted as 
supporting this contention, especially in view of the high 
turnover of other inhabitants who were unable to make a 
living in the town. Hird occupied his lot until his death in 



60 



1748, and the rest of the family departed soon after that 
date . 

The Dobree Site 
Symptomatic of the difficulties encountered in using a 
direct interpretation level of research is the documentary 
background on the Dobree Site. Using the lot numbers shown 
on the Miller Map, (Figure 4-1) and the information on lot 
ownership available in Coulter and Saye (1949:40), this site 
was originally thought to have been occupied by Robert 
Patterson, a accountant in the town store. However, after 
excavation of the site was nearly half finished, another 
reference found in Egmont's List indicated that Lot 21 South 
was occupied by Elisha Dobree, an accountant who worked as a 
clerk in the town store (Coulter and Saye 1949:71). 
Underscoring the confusion, a review of Margaret Davis Cate's 
research notes revealed contradictory listings for the lot 
number. In some cases Cate originally had "31-S" listed for 
Patterson's lot, but she later crossed this number out and 
replaced it with "21-S" on several reference cards (Cate 
1961). Using Cate's notes, Reese later attributed a 
description made by Dobree of his own house and lot to 
Patterson (1969:back cover). Finally, the Assistant 
Superintendant at Fort Frederica, George Berndt, informed the 
archeologists that the lot numbering for the rows containing 
Lots 21 through 31 in both Wards was reversed on the Miller 
Map (Figure 4-1). He cited as evidence the out-of-synch 
numbering of these two rows, and more conclusively, a grant 



61 

made in 1763 to Pickering Robinson in which town lot 25 in 
Frederica is described as being on a corner lot on the north 
side of Broad Street (Bryant 1972:30). Lot 25 in either Ward 
can only be on a corner if the lot numbers are reversed 
according to Berndt's interpretation. Since the Miller Map 
was drawn nearly one half century after the town was 
abandoned, a numbering error would not be surprising. The 
easternmost lot on the third row of the south ward is 
therefore considered to be Lot 31. 

Unfortunately the new documentary evidence concerning 
the lot designation has not cleared up the question of the 
lot ownership and occupancy. Since both Patterson and Dobree 
could not have owned the same lot at the same time, one of 
Egmont's entries must be in error. Dobree is known to have 
been in Frederica from at least 1736 to 1738 and to have sold 
his lot to David Provost sometime prior to 1743 (Candler 
1904-37:1,424, XXI, 283). In that year John Provost, David's 
heir, assigned a town lot in Frederica to Captain George 
Dunbar of Oglethorpe's Regiment. The lot was identified as 
Dobree's former property, but the lot number was not 
mentioned (Candler 1 904-37 : V , 705 ) . Dunbar died in Jamaica in 
1763 while still a Captain in the Regiment; the extent of his 
involvement on his Frederica lot is unknown. In 1759 William 
Mackintosh requested a grant for Lot 21 South in Frederica 
(Candler 1 904-37 : VI II , 1 43 ) . Presumably, if Dunbar was still 
in possession of Dobree's lot at this date, Mackintosh would 
not have requested it, so he must have been trying to obtain 



62 

the "real" Lot 21 belonging to Robert Patterson. This 
contention is supported by a similar request made in 1759 by 
Thomas Goldsmith for Patterson's Frederica lot, which was 
specified by name and not by number (Candler 1 904-37 : VI I , 32- 
33). By 1763 Goldsmith owned this lot and Patterson was said 
to be deceased ( 1 904-37 : IX, 53) . Patterson, who arrived with 
a wife and three sons in 1736, is known to have been in 
Frederica as late as 1741. By this time his entire family 
had died and he was supposedly running a "bawdy house" (Cate 
1961; Coulter and Saye 1949:40,100). An oblique reference to 
Patterson made by John Terry in 1745 does not definitely 
indicate the presence of Patterson at Frederica (Candler 
1904-37:XXIV,402) . 

On the basis of the admittedly incomplete documentary 
information reviewed above, it is suggested that the Lot 31 
South site belonged to the Dobree-Provost-Dunbar series of 
owners from 1736 to sometime prior to 1763. It is believed 
that the lot designation by the Earl of Egmont for the Dobree 
Lot was an error resulting from the inadvertent replacement 
of a "3" with a "2" or from incorrect information recorded by 
Egmont. Dobree is the only known occupant of the site-- 
Provost or Dunbar may have resided there, but this cannot be 
definitely established from the documents. 

Elisha Dobree was a controversial figure in early 
Georgia. He came to Savannah in 1734, where he was assigned 
a lot in the town (Coulter and Saye 1949:71). His arrival in 
Georgia was immediately precipitated by his flight from South 



63 

Carolina in order to escape his creditors (Candler 1 904- 
37:XX,72). Although trained as a merchant-bookkeeper, he 
wrote a number of letters to the Trustees describing his 
efforts at clearing land, farming, and preparing naval stores 
for export to the mother country. Notable among his many 
letters written in 1735 is one in which he mentioned the 
possibility of bringing slaves to Georgia (Candler 1904- 
37:XXI, 612-613) • This is one of the earliest references of 
dissatisfaction with the Trustees policies among the 
"Malcontents" (Wood 1979). In reply he received a strongly 
worded letter from the Trustees which emphasized the reasons 
for the laws prohibiting slavery and the consequences of 
disobedience to local authority. This letter also 
encouraged Dobree's farming attempts and almost in the same 
sentence reprimanded him for "...hiring so many Lots ((in 
Savannah)). Because it destroys poor Men, unites Lots, and 
drives away Inhabitants..." (Candler 1 904-37 : XXIV , 1 33 ) . Two 
months later he was discharged from his job as clerk in the 
town store in Savannah and he wrote a despairing letter 
concerning his "greatly reduced circumstances" (Candler 1904- 
37:XXIV, 377-380; McPherson 1962:97). In 1736 he gave a 
description of his house and lot at Frederica where he was 
again a clerk in the town store: "...a small house with a 
brick chimney, built on his town lot which is fenced and has 
palisades and clapboards, well dunged and now every way fit 
for propogation of fine plants..." (Candler 1 904-37 : XXI , 345 ) . 
Apparently Dobree possessed one of the small clapboard huts 



64 

so common to the nonaffluent segment of the colonial 
population at Frederica (Manucy 1960:20). A single servant 
may have resided with him in his new home (there are at least 
five servants listed for Dobree by Egmont) . His wife, 
however, refused his repeated requests that she join him, 
saying that he was a "whimsical man, and not able to 
maintain" her and their three children (Egmont 1923:377). 
Dobree started complaining about the harshness of his new 
home almost immediately and probably left Frederica sometime 
after 1738 when the last reference to his employment at the 
store was made (Candler 1 904-37 : V , 70 ) . 

Although not extensive, the documentary records contain 
evidence that Dobree had a difficult time as a colonist. His 
short, inauspicious stays in Carolina, Savannah, and 
Frederica indirectly indicate a lack of success in exploiting 
the natural and social environments in each location. 
Certainly his wife's opinion of his abilities as a family 
provider and his own admission of economic hardship are not 
inconsistent with an inference of low socio-economic status 
at Frederica, at least in comparison to the occupants of the 
Hawkins-Davison and Hird sites. Questions relating to the 
identification of the Dobree occupation and how it contrasts 
with other colonial occupations are developed in Chapter VII. 



CHAPTER V 
METHODS AND MATERIALS 



This chapter reviews the methods and results of 
excavation and analysis for the three sites investigated. An 
attempt is made to describe the research frame used in this 
study in terms of (1) the ways in which the research frame 
was investigated in the field and during analysis, and 
(2) the archeological data obtained from application of the 
excavation and analysis methods and techniques. A 
distinction is maintained throughout this chapter in the 
discussion of faunal and nonfaunal methods and materials. 
This contrast arises from the specialized analytical 
procedures used in zooarcheological studies and the nature of 
the fauanal material itself, which is recognized as 
representing specialized by-products of human behavior which 
is distinct from the behaviors accounting for the presence of 
ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts in the archeological 
record (South 1977a:97; Wing and Brown 1979:1-10). 

Excavation and analysis procedures employed at the Hird, 
Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites were fairly consistent 
despite the extended intervening periods between projects. 
One reason for the continuity achieved in the excavations is 
the close professional association among the researchers 
involved in the archeology of Frederica. Also contributing 

65 



66 

to the possibility of making valid intersite comparisons is 
the quality of the field work performed by Fairbanks in 1952, 
which resulted in the systematic recovery of both architec- 
tural and nonarchi tectural data at the Hawkins-Davison site. 
His approach was in many respects ahead of its time in 
comparison to contemporary historic site projects, and his 
work served as a standard that was rarely equalled in later 
excavations at Frederica. 

Excavation Procedures 
The procedures used in excavating the three sites 
reported here reflect the specific research goals of the 
archeologists . The orientation at the Hawkins-Davison Site 
was toward discovering and excavating architectural features 
that could be used as a locational datum and as evidence of 
British colonial housing. In addition, anthropological 
questions were investigated. In order to determine the 
extent to which differences in the crafts performed by the 
residents of the site would be reflected in the archeological 
assemblage, Fairbanks sifted all excavated dirt using one 
half inch screen, retained all artifacts found, and recorded 
provenience information while excavating. Ten foot square 
units were excavated in and around the house; lot lines were 
determined by trenching. An area of 209 square meters (2249 
square feet) was uncovered at the site, including the west 
trench shown in Figure 5-1. Horizontal and vertical control 
was attained through reference to a permanent datum station 
that was established at the site. 



69 

At the Hird Site the research focus was on the 
definition of activity loci in the back lot or "toft" area of 
the site, and on the recovery of artifacts and features 
indicative of craft activities, food storage and preparation 
practices, and trash disposal behavior. Rather than attempt 
to locate and expose foundations, the back lot area was 
sampled through intensive excavation of eight ten by five 
foot units and eight ten by ten units (Figure 5-2). A total 
area of 111.5 square meters (1200 square feet) was excavated. 

The field strategy at the Dobree Site was to excavate 
the entire 90 by 60 foot lot using three by three meter 
squares. Complete excavation of the hypothesized lot was 
expected to reveal archeological correlates of street and lot 
edges, house construction, craft activity loci, and lot 
structure and function. The large, detailed body of 
archeological data generated from this approach was expected 
to be useful for testing hypotheses concerning the patterning 
of artifact associations on intrasite, local intersite, and 
regional intersite levels. Sixty-three excavation units were 
dug at the site, although not all of them were within the lot 
lines. Due to the presence of numerous features on the north 
end of the site and to the lack of a clearly defined fence 
line marking the actual lot boundary, several excavation 
units were placed to the north and west of the lot, as 
indicated in Figure 5-3- The actual area uncovered during 
the excavation, which totaled 465 square meters (5005 square 
feet), is illustrated in Figure 5-4. 



70 



8 




10 



II 



14 



3 meters 



Figure 5-2. Excavation Plan, Hird Site. 



Figure 5-3. Excavation Plan, Dobree Site. 



12 





i 




2 




3 




4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 






II 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 




21 


22- 


-23- 


-24- 


-25- 


-26- 


-27- 


-28 

— i — 






29 


i 

30 


31 


32 


33 


34 


35 


is 








i 

37 

i 
i 


38 


39 


40 


41 


42 


! 
i 






43 


44 


45 


46 


47 




i 

48 

i 
i 










49 


50 


51 




52 


i 






I 




53 




54 


55 


j 


57 






58 












i 

i 
I 






j 


59 




60 






i 
I 
I 

I 
I 
















61 


I 
I 
1 
l 
1 
l 






H — i 




63 








I 
1 





















7^ 



75 

A permanent datura was established at the Hird and Dobree 
sites to facilitate use of a transit, chain, and stadia rod 
for horizontal and vertical control. Excavated dirt was 
screened through one-fourth inch square mesh fitted to 
gasoline-powered shaker screens (Figure 5-5), with the 
exception of Square 13 at the Hird Site where three-eighths 
by one inch diamond mesh was used. Water screening was 
employed whenever necessary, for instance when excavating 
features containing wet soil or high bone densities. One- 
eighth inch screen was used for excavating part of a barrel 
well at the Dobree Site, but this technique resulted in 
greatly increased excavation time and labor without a 
corresponding increase in artifact recovery (most of the 
small bone recovered with this screen size could not be 
identified). Other features at the site were therefore 
screened with the one-fourth inch mesh. 

Besides the extent of the sample frames, the most 
important difference between the field strategies employed at 
the Hird and Dobree sites consisted of the way in which some 
artifact classes were collected and recorded. Brick, tabby, 
and shell were noted only on a presence-absence basis at the 
Hird Site, while at the Dobree Site these artifact categories 
were quantified for nearly half of the excavation units in an 
attempt to define the location of a domestic structure. In 
view of the extreme limitations that presence-absence 
approach to artifact collection imposes on the interpretation 
of the archeological record (Taylor 19^8), and the 









<D 




CU 




j_, 


CD 




4-J 


oo 






CO 


£_ 




CD 


CD 




CD 


CO 


£_ 


_d 


JZ 


co 


o 




Q 


XT 




CD 




j_ 


W 


CD 


CO 




CD 


Q 




cx 




1 


O 


CD 




c 


Cu 


•H 




, — | 


c 


o 


1— 1 


co 




CI! 




bC 






o 


CD 


:s 






4-> 


•o 




rH 


bX? 


0) 


C 


•H 


■H 




O 








C»-l 






LO 


CD 


1 


£h 


LO 


CO 


CD 


CO 




Jh 




CD 


hO 


H 


■H 


CD 




> 




O 




s: 




CO 



77 




78 

demonstrable research utility of quantification of 
construction-related artifacts at historic sites (Lewis 1977, 
Kaplan and Coe 1976), brick and tabby quantification was felt 
to be justified despite the time and effort devoted to it. 
The quantification technique used at the Dobree site 
consisted of measuring the volume of all construction 
materials recovered while screening and recording the total 
volume recovered for each provenience in the field notes. 
Volume measurements to the nearest liter were taken by 
depositing the brick and tabby .in plastic buckets with liters 
marked on the sides. 

Horizontal Control 
The discovery in 1952 of the Hawkins-Davison common wall 
on the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 South has provided 
a convenient and accurate datum for subsequent archeology at 
Frederica. The hypothesized outlines of the Hird and Dobree 
sites were determined by measuring the appropriate distances 
from the common wall, using colonially reckoned cardinal 
directions as determined from the layout of Broad Street 
(this street extends in a direction that is 99 degrees east 
of magnetic north). At the point where a straight line from 
the Hawkins-Davison wall forms a right-angle intersection 
with the center of Broad Street, the distance measured to the 
southwest corner of the Hird Lot was 450 feet east (137.1 
meters) and 142 feet north (43.2 meters). This latter 
distance was erroneously reported as 190.75 feet north in the 
1975 Hird Site study (Honerkamp 1975:70). Widths of 75 feet 



79 

for Broad Street, 30 feet for Cross Street, and 14.5 feet for 
the east-west alley are assumed, as are lot dimensions of 60 
by 90 feet (see Table 4-1). The northwest corner of the 
Dobree Site was found using the same assumptions for street 
widths. In addition, the east-west street lying between the 
lot and Broad Street is assumed to be 22 feet wide. From the 
Hawkins-Davison wall-Broad Street intersection to the 
northwest corner of the lot the distances used were 510 feet 
east (155.4 meters) and 245 feet south (74.6 meters). 

Stratigraphy 

As is probably true of most sites at Frederica, both the 
Hird and Dobree sites were found to have been extensively 
disturbed by 19th and 20th century plowing. At both sites 
the dark gray A soil horizon was equivalent to the plowzone; 
this zone was excavated in two arbitrarily defined levels. 
Zone 1-A was 0.15 to 0.20 meter thick as measured from the 
ground surface after the removal of sod in each square. Zone 
1-B included all soil down to the light brown to tan sterile 
sand which made up the B soil horizon. This lower level of 
the plowzone was usually 0.10 to 0.15 meter in thickness. 
Man-made features, which were discernible only when they 
extended below the plow zone into sterile sand, were 
excavated separately. The Hawkins-Davison Site apparently 
was not plowed during recent times. Fairbanks found a zone 
of sandy humus covering the colonial remains that was 0.20 to 
0.30 meter thick (0.7-1.0 foot). 



80 

Natural disturbance processes were also present at the 
site. Animal burrows and root stains were commonly 
encountered, as were numerous burrowing insects, especially- 
beetle larvae. At the Dobree Site a count was made of the 
number of grubs encountered in a 15 centimeter level of the 
plowzone; 24 were seen in one three meter square. Since the 
life cycles of most of the grubs identified in the sample are 
less than one year in the larval stage, more than 200 years 
of concentrated "grub activity" would be sufficient to 
obliterate most of the evidence of stratification of cultural 
or natural zones. As Wood and Johnson point out, one of the 
most common consequences of insect action is the blurring of 
natural or cultural boundaries in the soil (1978:322). The 
lack of stratigraphic information noted by Fairbanks at the 
Hawkins-Davison Site, and the difficulty that the present 
author experienced in defining the outlines of features at 
the Hird and Dobree sites are certainly characteristic of 
f aunalturbation activities, and it is suspected that similar 
processes will have affected all archeological sites at 
Freder ica . 

Analytical Methods and Results 
As indicated in Chapters II and III, the methodological 
approach taken in this study is based on South's pattern 
recognition method. This has had far greater influence on 
the ways in which the artifacts have been analyzed than on 
the ways in which they were excavated. The earlier work done 
by Deagan (1972) and the author (1975) was not based on 



81 

South's approach, and as a consequence there are differences 
in the analytical techniques used and the results obtained 
from the application of these distinct techniques. For 
instance, Deagan did not completely quantify all artifact 
classes from the Hawkins-Davison Site, so that only the 
ceramic and glass from this site are useful for testing some 
of the hypotheses presented in the next chapter. 

Artifact Analysis 

The first step in the analysis of the archeological 
materials was artifact identification. Ivor Noel Hume's A 
Guide to Art i facts of Colonial America (1974) was the primary 
reference used by Deagan and the author in the identification 
of ceramic types. The work by Miller and Stone (1970) was 
also frequently used. The primary sources consulted in the 
identification of glass artifacts were Brown (1971) and Noel 
Hume (1969b, 1974). References for metal and flint artifacts 
include Stone (1974), Hanson and Hsu (1975), and Hamilton 
(1976). The archeological type collections at the Department 
of Anthropology, University of Florida also facilitated 
identification of ceramic and nonceramic material. Floral 
materials were identified by Dr. David W. Hall of the 
Vascular Plant Herbarium, Botany Department, University of 
Florida . 



Data Management 

How to handle the sheer quantity of artifacts identified 
from the Dobree Site was a major problem during the analysis. 



82 

It was quickly realized that the hand-tabulated quantifica- 
tion techniques used by the author for the Hird Site material 
was inadequate for organizing and analyzing the data base 
resulting from the nearly complete excavation of the Dobree 
Lot. It became obvious that the most efficient means of 
working with the extensive Dobree data base would be through 
the application of computer data handling capabilities. Of 
the several computer packages available for this purpose from 
the Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC) at the University 
of Florida, the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was 
considered to be the most suitable package for meeting the 
particular organizational and analytical needs of the author. 
This choice was based on the highly versatile and powerful 
capabilities SAS has for information storage and retrieval, 
data modification, file handling, and statistical analysis. 
In addition the system is relatively easy to learn and comes 
with an understandable though terse user's manual (Helwig and 
Council 1979). The package is limited to IBM hardware, which 
at NERDC consists of an IBM-360/370 computer. 

The input data used to create a SAS data set for the 
Dobree ceramics consisted of 3^3 cases, with each case 
containing information for three identifying variables and 
frequency values for 20 ceramic types and six ceramic wares. 
The identifying variables used were the original field 
specimen number, the excavation unit number, and the 
provenience designation. Nonceramic artifacts were also 
coded into SAS data sets using the same identifying 



83 

variables. Through reference to one or a combination of the 
identifying variables it was possible to combine, divide, or 
alter the ceramic and nonceramic SAS data sets in any way 
that was useful for analytical purposes. Although the 
conversion from analysis forms to SAS data sets was time 
consuming, it ultimately spared the author many frustrating 
hours of hand tabulation. Conversion to SAS data sets also 
allowed application of statistical techniques that would have 
been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to perform by 
hand, such as computing the correlation coefficients for 
several ceramic types based on freqency of occurrance for all 
63 squares at the Dobree Site. The SAS data sets created for 
the artifacts and faunal materials from the plowzone and 
features are presented in summary form in Appendix A through 
Appendix D. Original analysis forms are on file at the 
National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, 
Tallahassee ( art if actual ) and the Florida State Museum, 
Gainesville (faunal). 

Of obvious utility for establishing temporal parameters 
for almost any historic site is the mean ceramic date formula 
(South 1972). Mean ceramic dates for the excavation units, 
features, and the sites themselves were found for the Dobree 
and Hird sites. The Hawkins-Davison ceramic analysis did not 
allow application of the formula. The dates derived for the 
Dobree ceramic data for both the plowzone and features were 
calculated through the use of a SAS subroutine devised by the 
author. 



an 



Another computer program used in the analysis of the 
Dobree Site artifacts was the Synagraphic Mapping System, or 
SYMAP. This computer graphics program produces maps on which 
spatial data are graphically displayed through variable 
darkness and texture. It is especially useful for providing 
a method of interpolating data values for locations in a 
mapped area based on the values of the closest known data 
points in that area. The construction of artifact density 
isopleth maps composed of contour lines connecting all 
locations having the same density values is one example of 
SYMAP's interpolation capabilities. Although the user's 
manual for this package is obscurely written (Dougenik and 
Sheehan 1975), the program was easy to use once the basic 
mechanics for obtaining output were finally mastered. SYMAP 
contour maps delineating relative densities of several 
classes of artifacts from the Dobree Site were used to 
address questions of site structure and function. 

Classification Format: Dobree Site 

The specific analytical tools used in this study were 
chosen for their applicability in addressing the research 
questions of interest to the author. The type-ware-class- 
group classification scheme, which is an integral part of the 
pattern recognition approach (South 1 977a : 92- 1 02 ) , has been 
followed. The artifacts were divided into the same classes 
and groups that South used to construct empirical artifact 
profiles for deriving the Carolina-Architecture artifact 
patterns. As already mentioned, analysis of the 



85 

Hawkins-Davison nonceramic material was on a presence-absence 
basis which did not allow direct group-class comparisons with 
the totally quantified Hird and Dobree assemblages. 

The artifact classification for the Dobree and Hird 
sites conformed closely to the format proposed by South in 
order to allow intersite comparisons to be made of the 
empirical artifact profiles that were constructed for each 
site. In doing so, however, a number of decisions concerning 
the structuring of the data base associated with the sites 
had to be made, especially with respect to the inclusion of 
various categories of artifacts in the pattern recognition 
format. Since this study is concerned with aspects of the 
British colonial occupation at Frederica, artifacts that were 
known to have been deposited later were excluded from the 
analysis. For instance, wire nails and ironstone pottery 
were certainly not discarded at the Dobree or Hird sites 
during colonial times. 

The reasoning behind the decision to exclude artifacts 
of the "wrong" temporal period from the analysis is explained 
as follows. South's approach attempts to delineate patterns 
in artifact relationships and distributions as they apply to 
the British colonial system at historic sites. It is 
reasonable to assume that inclusion of noncolonial artifacts 
in the analysis would tend to obscure evidence of colonial 
activities or behavior. It is therefore desirable to 
eliminate from consideration those aspects of the data base 
which are associated with a later noncolonial system. It is 



86 

also possible to further delimit the data base by excluding 
colonial materials which must have been deposited after the 
primary occupation at Frederica (1736-early 1750s). This 
approach has been followed in the present analysis. 

Unfortunately South does not delineate the data base 
used in his studies in a manner that would allow other 
researchers to replicate his classification format, and it is 
this lack of explicit data definition that is considered to 
be a major drawback in the pattern recognition approach. 
Although it is true that studies of historic artifacts over 
the last 20 years have rendered further detailed analysis of 
some classes superfluous (i.e., ceramics, wine bottles, 
pipes), it is equally true that other classes have been 
neglected and need to be described so that other 
archeologists will know what is or is not being included in 
them. 

A brief review of the type-ware-class-group classifi- 
cation procedure as it was applied to the Dobree and Hird 
artifact assemblages will serve to point out the adjustments 
made to South's original format as a result of unique aspects 
of the data base at Frederica. 

Since the Dobree site material is reported here for the 
first time, descriptions of some of the artifact types used 
in the class categories are more detailed than is usual for 
most pattern recognition studies. This serves a dual purpose 
by: 1) allowing researchers with differing orientations to 
incorporate the data reported here, and 2) making explicit 



87 

the reasoning behind decisions made during the analysis 
concerning the inclusion of particular artifacts in 
particular groups and classes, thereby eliminating the 
shortcoming in South's approach mentioned above. Table 5-1 
summarizes the artifact class frequencies for the plowzone 
and feature material from the Dobree Site and should be 
consulted during the following discussion. 

Kitchen Group 

As mentioned above, the types and wares included in the 
Ceramics class vary from those suggested by South. In the 
present study it was assumed that all creamware, which has a 
beginning manufacturing date of 1762 (Noel Hume 1974:125), or 
postcreamware ceramics types were deposited after the primary 
occupation of Frederica. This is indicated not only by the 
documented occupation spans of the town in general and the 
Hird and Dobree Sites in particular, but also by the 
extremely small percentages of "late" pottery recovered at 
both sites, 1.0$ and 2.3$, respectively. By contrast, Deagan 
identified 15.5$ of the ceramics from the Hawkins-Davison 
Site as being creamware or later (Table 5-2). The plowzone 
distributions of the early versus late ceramics at the Dobree 
Site also support the argument for a noncontinuous occupation 
at the site. The SYMAP contour maps of the ceramic 
frequencies shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 illustrate the 
the distinct, exclusive disposal locations for the early and 
late groups. If the occupation of the site had been 
continuous through the third quarter of the 18th century, it 



88 



Table 5-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site. 





Plowzone 


Features 


Totals 


Kitchen Group a 








1 . Ceramics 


10150 


1993 


12143 


c. • wine Dottie 


UQ 1 Q 


U U *T 




3. Case bottle 


3202 


604 


3806 


4. Tumbler 


290 


89 


379 


5. Pharmaceutical 


478 


375 


853 


6. Glassware 


66 


63 


129 


7. Tableware 


8 


3 


1 1 


8. Kitchenware 


2 


0 


2 


Totals 


19115 


3991 


23106 


Bone Group 








9-A. Bone weight (gm) 


13863.3 


15982.5 


29845.' 


9-B. Bone frequency 


6729 


7758 


14487 


Architectural Group 








10. Window glass 


3968 


367 


4335 


11. Nails 


5902 


1930 


7832 


12. Spikes 


42 


10 


52 


13. Construction hardware 


3 




7 


111 Dnnp look nflrf «? 


u, 


1 


c 


Total 


9919 


2312 


12231 


Furni furp frrnnn 








15. Furniture hardware 


26 


8 


34 


Arms Group 








16. Musketballs/shot/sprue 


103 


41 


144 


17. Gunflints, gunspalls 


73 


17 


90 


18. Gun parts 


78 


14 


92 


Totals 


254 


72 


326 


Clothing Group 








19. Buckles 


96 


15 


1 1 1 


20. Thimbles 


1 


1 


2 


21. Buttons 


58 


1 6 


74 


22. Scissors 


4 


2 


6 


23. Pins 


0 


20 


20 


24. Hook and eye fasteners 


4 


1 


5 


25. Bale seals 


0 


0 


0 


26-A. Glass beads 


3 


2 


5 


26-B. Miscellaneous clothing 3 


7 


10 


Totals 


169 


64 


233 



39 



Table 5-1 (continued) 

Plowzone Features Totals 



27. Coins 


9 




1 1 


28. Keys 


4 


0 


4 


29. Personal items 


7 

r 


1 

1 


« 

u 


i otals 


0 n 
£ U 




£ J 


Tobacco Pipe Group 








30. White clay bowl and 








stem fragments 


||C7r 

ho7d 


1 0 n 0 


C ft *7 ft 


Activities Group 








31. Construction tools 


r 

5 


0 
<i 


7 

r 


32. Farm tools 


0 


0 


u 


33. Toys 


3 


U 


3 


34. Fishing gear 


4 


0 


4 


35. Stub-stemmed pipes 


0 


0 


0 


j o . uoiono ware 


n 
u 


n 


0 


37. Storage items 


70 


38 


108 


38. Ethnobotanical 


9 


52 


61 


39- Stable and barn 


3 


1 


4 


40. Miscellaneous hardware 


13 


14 


27 


41. Other 


881 


208 


1089 


42. Military items 


6 


1 


7 


Totals 


995 


316 


1311 



a Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system 



used by South (1977:95-96). 

Bone f req 
f ragment . 



^Bone frequencies derived by using a ratio of 2.06 grams per 



90 



Table 5-2. Identifiable Ceramics From Three Sites, 
Frederiea, Georgia. 

Sites 
Hawkins- 



Types: Pre-Creamware 


Hird 


Davi son 


Dobr< 


Decorated delftware 


478 


7 


933 


Mimosa pattern delftware 


7 


540 ? 


0 


Plain white delftware 


336 


? 


507 


French faience 


0 


5 


1 


Spanish olive jar 


0 


3 


0 


Utilitarian lead glazed 








earthenware, buff/tan paste 


1073 


326 


2637 


Utilitarian lead glazed 








earthenware, red paste 


1 65 


6 


187 


Slip decorated earthenware 


542 


150 


1843 


Astbury refined earthenware 


85 


24 


446 


Refined agateware 


88 


5 


240 


Jackfield earthenware 


0 


1 


0 


"Clouded" wares 


1 


4 


3 


Pipkins, lead glazed or unglazed 


4 


2 


2 


"Miscellaneous" earthenware 


449 


29 


1276 


White salt glazed stoneware 


358 




1724 


Molded white salt glazed 








stoneware 


1 8 


220 ? 


1 1 1 


Dipped white salt glazed 








stoneware 


87 


7 


368 


Rhenish salt glazed stoneware 


64 


100 


253 


Brown salt glazed stoneware 


115 


7 


77 


Gray salt glazed stoneware 


54 


126 ? 


1 27 


Crouchware 


421 


7 


42 


Nottingham stoneware 


42 


12 


84 


Shaw slipped stoneware 


5 


0 


0 


Scratch blue salt glazed 








stoneware 


0 


1 




Scratch brown salt glazed 








stoneware 


0 


1 


0 


Oriental porcelain 


255 


74 


1278 


English porcelain 


1 


18 


0 


rn /-\ rp ft t f"i 

TOTALS 


ii r ii o 

4648 


1 647 


12143 


Types: Creamware and Later 








Early creamware 


7 


7 


1 2 


Late creamware 


7 ? 


34 ? 


5 


Plain pearlware 


1 


103 


58 


Transfer printed pearlware 


6 


68 


28 


Annular pearlware 


0 


3 


16 



91 



Table 5-2 (continued) 

Sites 
Hawkins- 



Types: Creamware and Later 


Hird 


Davison 


Dobree 


Edged pearlware 


0 


9 


24 


Underglaze blue painted 








pearlware 


0 


30 ? 


7 


Underglaze polychrome stenciled 








pearlware 


0 


? 


3 


Whi teware 


7 


0 


106 


Ironstone 


13 


63 


1 1 


Alkaline glazed stoneware 


0 


0 


1 


Agate doorknobs 


0 


2 


0 


Late 19th/20th century 








ceramics 


13 


0 


17 


TOTALS 


47 


303 


288 


SITE TOTALS 


4695 


1950 


12431 



a A question mark indicates that the frequency of the type is 
unknown; combined frequencies are known and are indicated 
to the left of the question marks. 



Figure 5-6. Distribution of Pos tcreamware Ceramics, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



93 




Figure 5-7. Distribution of Identifiable Colonial 
Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



95 




96 

would reasonably be expected to show more concordance in 
trash disposal behavior than is indicated by the ceramic 
distributions . 

Due largely to plowing, a considerable portion of 
earthenware fragments were damaged to the degree that 
identification at the type level could not be made. This was 
especially true of the tin-enamelled earthenwares with their 
poorly adhering glazes. Although almost all of the eroded 
sherds can probably be attributed to the primary occupation 
span at Frederica, it is not possible to include these sherds 
in such calculations as mean ceramic dates since the glaze 
decorations used to determine the specific delftware types 
(i.e., mimosa pattern, plain white, decorated delft) are 
absent. However, it is possible to include these partially 
identified, colonial period ceramics in the pattern 
recognition classification scheme. Accordingly, a 
"miscellaneous earthenware" ceramic category was defined for 
the Hird and Dobree ceramic collections and incorporated into 
the Ceramics class. Included in this category were all 
eroded or fragmented sherds that possessed paste 
characteristics similar to those of the positively identified 
types found in closed contexts at the sites. Also included 
were a small number of intact lead glazed earthenware sherds 
that have not been previously described in the ceramic 
literature but were found in closed-context proveniences at 
the Dobree Site. This ceramic type is a refined earthenware 
and was referred to as "lusterware" on the analysis forms. 



97 

The low-fired, soft, cream to buff colored paste is covered 
with a relatively thick, evenly applied shiny lead glaze 
which is dark brown or black in color (Figure 5-8). The 
sherds exhibit extremely thin cross sections, all of which 
are 0.3 centimeters or less in thickness. Although vessel 
form could not be determined for this ware as a result of the 
small size of the recovered fragments, the uniformly thin 
vessel walls and the carefully applied glaze indicate that 
this type probably functioned as a tableware. Other ceramics 
classified under the "miscellaneous" categorv include a very 
few eroded examples of utilitarian lead glazed earthenware, 
slip decorated earthenware, and unglazed earthenware. 
Examples of this latter ceramic category exhibited a uniform 
hard bodied, light orange-buff paste with small inclusions of 
mica or some other siliceous material. None of the fragments 
exceeded 0.6 centimeter in thickness. Plain flattened rims 
were noted, as were throwing marks on the interior of the 
sherds. Similar paste characteristics were found for an 
unglazed pipkin handle that was recovered from the plowzone 
(Figure 5-8), but direct evidence for the use of the unglazed 
earthenware as a cooking ware was not found. The lack of a 
glaze on all the recovered fragments suggest some kind of 
utilitarian function for the ware, but the specific function 
is unknown. 

Evidence that postdepositional disturbances at the 
Dobree Site are responsible for much of the eroded and 
fragmented attributes of the miscellaneous earthenwares is 









CO 


(-3 










o 


o 










rf 


"O 










cr 












o 


-5 


hrj 








3 


o 
z 


1— 
TO 








T 




C 








o 




3 












CD 










C G 
3 3 


LTI 
1 


CD 


3 


3 




(— ' 1— ' 


co 




CD 


CD 


o 


CO CD 






^ 


| ->> 


h- 1 


N N 




OJ 






Cl 


CD CD 




T 


3 


3 


CD 


CL Cl 


o 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CL 




CD 




Cl 


CL 


g; 


CD CD 

pi) ftf 


3 

CO 




cl cr 


rj- 


3 3 


3 




PJ 


3 




ct ct" 






3 


O 




cr cr 


o 




?r s 


CD 


CD CD 








3 




3 3 


> 




cr 




CO 


£ Z 


3 






H 


P) 


Co CO 


ct 




o 


CD 


h- 1 


3 3 








0> 


ct 


CD CD 








CL 


Oq 


3 n 


ac 




MOT 






ct 




CD 




a) 


3 T3 


ca 




PJ 


PJ 


N 








CL 


N 


CD 










CD 


CL 


3 


O 




Oq 


CL 






o 




h- 1 




w 


3* 


cr 




PJ 


CD 


cr 


Co 


3 




N 


PJ 


o 


3 


CD 




CD 


3 


3 


CL 


CD 




CL 


rf 


CD 


1— 1 








cr 


£ 


CD 


oo 




CD 


CD 










DJ 


3 


3 




cf 




3 


s 


CD 


rf 


CD 




Ct 


0) 










cr 
i 


3 

CD 




O 





-CO 



o - 



100 

seen in the differing ratios for this type that were found 
for the features and plowzone. The ratios were calculated by 
subtracting the total miscellaneous ceramics from the entire 
ceramics total (excluding aboriginal and late types) and 
dividing the miscellaneous total by the resulting ceramics 
total. The feature ratio, which would be expected to reflect 
the effects of normal ceramic use-breakage-discard practices, 
is .09. In contrast, the plowzone ceramics, which are 
believed to reflect the effects of postdeposi tional processes 
(trampling by colonial-period livestock and humans, plowing, 
modern sod planting activities), have a ratio of .12. 

It is possible to test the assumption that the 
miscellaneous earthenware ceramics are associated with the 
main occupation period at the site by comparing the product- 
moment coefficients computed for this ceramic category 
(designated as a SAS variable called MISCERTH) , the 
positively identified precreamware types (grouped into a 
single variable called COLONIAL) , and the creamware or later 
types (variable LATEPOT) . Table 5-3 gives the correlation 
results for the plowzone ceramics from the 63 excavated 
squares. As expected, the coefficient for the COLONIAL and 
MISCERTH correlation indicates a much stronger positive 
relationship than for either of these two variables with 
LATEPOT. The slightly negative relationship that exists 
between the COLONIAL and LATEPOT variables is attributed to 
the distinct, noncontiguous disposal locations of these two 
groups of ceramics, as shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7. 



101 



Table 5-3. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three 
Ceramic Categories, Dobree Site. 



CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RH0=0 / N = 63 

COLONIAL MISCERTH LATEPOT 

COLONIAL 1.00000 0.69961 -0.20578 

0.0000 0.0001 0.1057 

MISCERTH 0.69961 1.00000 -0.07118 

0.0001 0.0000 0.5793 

LATEPOT -0.20578 -0.07118 1.00000 

0.1057 0.5793 0.0000 



Table 5-4. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three 
Nail Types, Dobree Site. 



CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB 

WROUGHT 
SQUARE 
NEWNAIL 



R UNDER H0:RH0=0 / N = 63 

NEWNAIL 

0.05319 
0.6788 

0.11512 
0. 3690 

1 .00000 
0.0000 



WROUGHT 


SQUARE 


1 .00000 


0.52765 


0.0000 


0.0001 


0.52765 


1 .00000 


0.0001 


0.0000 


0.05319 


0.11512 


0.6788 


0.3690 



102 

Not considered in the analyisis were 129 of the 133 
ceramic fragments classified as "Miscellaneous Stoneware" 
since the appropriate temporal and ethnic affiliations for 
these nondiagnostic sherds could not be determined. The four 
sherds of miscellaneous stoneware that were included in the 
analysis are all scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, a 
type for which temporal and ethnic associations have been 
established (Noel Hume 1974:117). 

Only one ceramic vessel could be completely recon- 
structed from the Dobree ceramic assemblage. The white salt 
glazed stoneware cup shown in Figure 5-9 was found in the 
shaft fill dirt of the Feature 3 well. Cross sections of the 
mended and partial ceramic vessels for which vessel shape 
could be determined are shown in Figure 5-10. 

Although the fragments of wine and case bottles used for 
the Wine Bottle and Case Bottle classes are very nearly 
identical in terms of color, evidence of bottle shape 
provides a useful guide for recognizing the bottle type and 
class. All round sectioned, olive-green fragments, except 
for obvious shoulder fragments from case bottles, were 
incuded in the Wine Bottle class. Case Bottle fragments were 
defined as square sectioned fragments of olive-green glass. 
Blown-molded glass, which began to be manufactured in the 
last quarter of the 18th century (Lorraine 1968), was 
excluded from the Kitchen group since it postdates the 
Frederica occupation. This later dark green glass was 
recognized by the presence of mold marks or a pebbled texture 



s 

o 

CD 

P> o 

..H 

m c— 



0) -P r-\ 

<v s: 2 

L bO o 

O CD 

o 

co a a 

rH 2D 

CD O O 
CO 

CO CD C 

CD U -H 

> CO CO 

S rH 

0 CD CD 
•.h CO 
S O C 
CO P> O 
c CO a 

0 

CJ> X3 rH 

CD CO 

CD tSJ P> 

U CO C 

CO i — I CD 

CD i- 

rH -P O 
.Q rH 

CO CO i — l 

H CO CO 

•H 

CD P 

•P C 

"H CO 

1 s: cu 



^ p 

D -P £ 

bO <P bO 

•rH CD 

Cx, -J CC 



104 




Figure 5-10. Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic Vessels, 
Dobree Site. 

Row 1: White salt glazed stoneware lids. 

Row 2: Porcelain bowl; white salt glazed stoneware 
bowl . 

Row 3«* White salt glazed stoneware cup and bowl. 
Bottom right: Astbury bowl. 



106 




107 

on the glass surface, the latter a result of contact with the 
cool surface of the mold (Brown 1971:103). 

Only one complete wine bottle and one reconstructed, 
nearly complete wine bottle were recovered from the site; 
both were found in wells (Features 1 and 3, respectively). 
As shown in Figure 5-11, both bottles are similar in shape to 
those illustrated by Noel Hume for the early 1750s (1974:66). 

The fragmented nature of the artifacts recovered from 
the Dobree Site made distinctions between some classes of 
glass artifacts difficult. This was especially true for the 
Tumbler and Glassware classes, for which small body sherds of 
lead glass tumblers and goblets were virtually 
indistinguishable. All such fragments, as well as any 
fragments of wheel engraved lead glass are included in the 
Tableware class while only positively identified tumbler 
fragments were counted in the Tumbler class. One 
reconstructed tumbler, found in Feature 3, is show in Figure 
5-12 with three partial goblets from the same provenience. 
The most elaborate goblet has a raised, folded base with a 
partial inverted baluster below a large annulated knop and a 
waisted bowl. The thick bowl base contains a small tear 
while the baluster contains a very large one. Noel Hume 
recovered similar waisted-bowl goblets in a Williamsburg 
tavern refuse deposit that was discarded between 1750-1760, 
but he believes a more accurate manufacturing range to be in 
the 1715-1740 period ( 1 969b: 17) - The two trumpet goblets 
also contain large tears in the stems, while the smaller 









CD 


..H 


U 


co 


3 




■P 




03 


<v 


CO 


u 




jo 




o 


e 


Q 


o 




Sh 






CO 




0) 


CO 


H 


•H 


4-> 




■P 


4-5 


o 




CO 


CD 




rH 


CD 




B 


CD 


■H 






4-5 




c s 




o o 








CD CM 


1 


H • 


LO 


ao 




E C\l 


CD 


co 


£h 


X +> 


3 


cd x: 


bO 


bO 


•H 


CD »H 


Pu 


x: cd 




Eh 



109 




•H 



CD 
Sh 

bO 
■H 



112 

example posseses a folded base. Goblets with these 
characteristics are dated to the second quarter and middle of 
the 18th century (Noel Hume 1 969b : 1 8 , 1974:192). 

Artifacts classified under the Pharmaceutical Bottle 
class, Tableware class, and Kitchenware class are similar to 
those used by South. The three Tableware items from the 
features (trash pits) consist of an iron fork fragment and 
parts of two pewter spoons. The spoon handle shown in Figure 
5-13 has the letters "B+J" engraved above an asterisk design. 
The initials are obviously hand engraved and probably refer 
to the name of the spoon's owner rather than its maker, who 
would have used a stamped mark. The letter or letters next 
to the "B" may be the result of two attempts to engrave a 
crossed "I," which was the equivalent of the letter "J" in 
the colonial period (Noel Hume 1974:274). 

Eight Tableware artifacts are from the plowzone: four 
partial knives and a fork fragment, all of iron; a brass 
handle fragment from a knife and one from a spoon; and part 
of a pewter spoon handle (Figure 5-13). The only Kitchenware 
artifacts identified were two iron pot handles from the 
plowzone . 

Bone Group 

A major criticism made here of South's methodology is 
the manner in which he treats faunal materials. Even as he 
recognizes the unique characteristics of archeological bone, 
South uses raw fragment counts in the construction of bone- 
artifact ratios, thereby ignoring the intrinsic differences 



• 

CD 


CD 






4-3 


rH 






•H 


T3 






00 


C 








OS 






CD 


x: 






CD 








Sh 


c 








o 






O 


o 






Q 


CX 






* 


co 






CO 


co 






+J 


CO 






o 


03 




* 


03 


£h 




co 


<m 






4-3 


•H 






c 


-P 






CD 


Sh 


CD 


• 


E 


<c 


rH • 




bO 






C 




CD 


C CD 


CD 


S* 






e: 


c_ , 


Cti 


x: cd 


bO 








cd 


CD 


CD 


C bO 


s~ 


Cm 


i — 1 


O C 






-C 


O CD 




a 


cC 


a 


CD 




H 


CO CD 


Cm 










c 




U O) 


C 


o 




CD 


J* 


Sh 


m 


4-3 JC 




t— 1 




3 4-3 


c 






CD O 


o 




LO 


D-. .O 


Sh 








1— 1 




CD 






c 








Sh 










bO 


O 


CD 


G 




s- 


i-H 


O 






TD 


-P 




CL 


X3 


4-3 




o 


•H 


O 




H 




m 



115 

in the pre- and postdeposi t ional breakage rates that bones 
and artifacts possess. In the present study the bone- 
artifact ratios were created using bone weight and fragment 
counts. Bone weight is thought to be a more accurate measure 
for this purpose since it is less susceptible to upward bias 
as a result of breakage during excavation, transport, and 
analysis (see section on Faunal Analysis below). Fragment 
counts can increase significantly due to postdeposi tion 
breakage factors while bone weights would tend to decrease in 
small amounts from these same factors. 

South does not report the weights of the faunal material 
he has collected, so in order to derive comparable ratios it 
was necessary to determine fragment counts for the plowzone 
and feature bone at the Hird and Dobree sites. At the Hird 
site fragment counts were made for every taxon, but at the 
Dobree site only weight was recorded for unidentified bone 
found in closed contexts and plowzone bone was recorded by 
weight only. It was possible to arrive at a projected 
fragment count for this site by extrapolating the weight to 
fragment ratio constructed for the rest of the bone 
categories analyzed from the features. A ratio of 2.06 grams 
per fragment was found, which is considered to be an 
extremely conservative estimate since it is based on the 
relatively well protected, closed context bone which would be 
subject to much less fragmentation than the plowzone bone. 
Total bone fragment and weight values for the Dobree site are 
presented in Table 5-1. 



116 



Architecture Group 

No adjustments were needed in the Window Glass artifact 
class. However, in addition to the late ceramics and glass 
noted above, wire and cut nails were excluded from the 
classification format. According to Nelson (1963) and 
Fontana (1965), cut nails were not produced until the last 
quarter of the 18th century, while wire nails were introduced 
in the 1850s. Since these later nails could not have been 
deposited during the colonial period, they were not included 
in the Dobree Site analysis. The round cross sections and 
circular heads of wire nails were readily identified, while 
wrought nails were recognized by their distinctive heads or, 
lacking that, by the shape of the shank. Wrought nails are 
tapered from head to point on all four sides while cut nails 
taper on two sides only. A fourth category defined for this 
artifact class was "Square Nails." As their name suggests, 
these were square in cross section but could not definitely 
be identified as wrought or cut due to their oxidized 
condition. However, they are believed to be composed largely 
of wrought nail fragments. This assumption was tested 
through comparison of the product-moment coefficients for the 
three main nail categories (Table 5-4). Wrought nails 
(variable WROUGHT) showed a weak positive correlation with 
square nails (SQUARE) and a random association with the later 
cut and wire nails (NEWNAIL), indicating similar behavior 
involved in the disposal of the suspected early nail types. 
Although wrought nails continued to be made and used through 



117 



the 19th century (Noel Hume 1974:252), those found at the 
Dobree and Hird sites are assumed to have been deposited 
during the primary colonial occupation (1736 to the mid- 
17503). Supporting evidence for this assertion is seen in 
the nearly identical ratios of wrought and square nails 
derived from the closed context colonial features and the 
plowzone at the Dobree Site, .61 and .59, respectively. The 
similarity in wrought-square nail ratios in the two 
proveniences indicates that oxidation and breakage of wrought 
nails remained constant through time, given systematic 
identification methods for the entire nail assemblage. 
Plowing is considered to have had little effect on nail 
breakage or the subsequent nail ratios. 

Only wrought iron spikes were included in the Spikes 
class. Due to their size, spikes had less ambiguous physical 
characteristics than from which a wrought or nonwrought 
determination could be made than did the oxidized nails. A 
"Square Spike" category was therefore not necessary. 

Artifacts considered under the Construction Hardware 
class consist of two wrought staple nails found in the wells 
(Features 2 and 3), a door hinge fragment from a trash pit 
(Feature 18), and part of a lead window came recovered from 
Feature 29; the plowzone contained two door pintal fragments 
and a wrought staple nail. The only artifact from a closed 
context that could be included in the Door Lock Parts class 
is a lock tumbler (Figure 5-14) from Feature 11, a trash- 
filled depression. In the plowzone one lock bolt, two door 



Figure 5-14. Architecture and Furniture Group 
Artifacts, Dobree Site. 

Top: Iron door lock tumbler. 

Middle: Brass drawer pull; brass mounting post; 
brass drawer handle. 

Bottom: Iron drawer handle. 



120 



latches, and one case lock part were recovered. Except for 
the window came, all of these objects are of iron. 

Furniture Group 

The Furniture Hardware class making up this group is 
comprised of a diverse assortment of artifacts, as summarized 
in the following table: 

Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class Artifacts, 
Dobree Site. 



Brass Items Plowzone Features 

Tacks 5 3 

Drawer handles 4 2 

Drawer handle mounting post 1 0 

Furniture screwplate 1 0 

Furniture screws 1 1 

Phinials 2 0 

Iron Items 

Hinges 2 2 

Drawer handles 4 0 

Screws 4 0 

Keyhole surround 1_ 0 



Totals 26 8 



Several of these Furniture class brass and iron artifacts are 
illustrated in Figure 5-14. The complete brass drawer handle 
and mounting post shown in this figure are nearly identical 
to examples from Williamsburg which Noel Hume dates from 
1720-40 (1971:36, 1974:224). 

Arms Group 

The Musketball-Shot-Sprue class is self explanatory. 
The totals for this class shown in Table 5-1 include only one 
sprue fragment. The gunflint class consists of 48 whole or 



121 



partial spall gunflints and 42 blade gunflints or fragmets. 
There is a perfect correlation between flint color and 
manufacturing technique in the gunflint sample: all spall 
gunflints are of gray flint while all blade gunflints are 
made of honey-colored flint (Figure 5-15). Gun parts, mainly 
lock fragments and furniture are broken down by provenience 
in Table 5-6. 

Unfortunately, the dating of gun parts is not as refined 
as that of ceramics or other artifact classes. All that can 
be said of the present collection is that most of the gun 
parts conform to styles that are not inconsistent with a 
colonial occupation at the site. Sideplates represent a 
possible exception to this generalization. Of the 14 brass 
sideplates recovered, 6 were in the dragonesque design shown 
in Figure 5-15. Five of the six plates have engraved designs 
on flat brass strips while the sixth is cast on a plate that 
is convex in cross section. This last artifact was recovered 
from a closed-context provenience, the top portion of the 
Feature 1 well pit. 

According to Hamilton, this style of sideplate was the 
"standard cast brass serpent sideplate which was used on the 
Northwest and Hudson's Bay trade guns from about 1775 to the 
close of the muzzle loading era around 1885" (1976:14). Noel 
Hume's discussion of colonial firearms raises intriguing 
questions concerning the presence of this sideplate at 
Freder ica : 

The best known of all decorative devices used on Early 
American muskets was the dragonesque side plate that 



Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class, Dobre 
Site. 



Brass Items 
Sideplates 
Triggerguards 
Escutcheon 
Buttplate 
Ramrod cap 

Iron Items 
Lock springs 
Tumblers 
Sears 
Vise jaws 
Vise screws 
Breech plugs 
Triggers 
Trigger guards 
Bridles 
Cock 
Frizzen 

Lead Items 
Gunflint sheaths 



Plowzone 
13 
7 
2 
1 
0 

23 
6 
5 
4 
3 
0 
4 
2 
2 
1 
1 

3 



Features 
1 
4 
1 

o 
1 

3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 



Totals 



78 



14 



Figure 5-15. Arras Artifacts, Dobree Site. 

Row 1: Gray spall gunflint; gray spall gunflint; 
honey-colored blade gunflint. 

Row 2: Engraved brass sideplates, dragon motif. 

Row 3: Cast brass sideplate, dragon motif. 

Row 4: Iron breech screw; iron tumbler; iron bridel. 

Row 5: Iron cock; iron mainspring; iron clamp screw. 



125 



characterized the weapons dispensed by the Hudson's 
Bay Company and by the North-West Fur Company of Mon- 
treal. Something akin to this motif occurs on a 
Florentine pistol of 1695, on a French musket of c. 
1700, on a few English examples of the first decades 
of the century, and on a German specimen of about 1740. 
These are all isolated examples, however, and there is 
no knowing which, if any, of them provided the inspira- 
tion for gun side plates of the later Indian trade. The 
earliest of them (perhaps dating in the third quarter 
of the eighteenth century) were engraved; but the vast 
majority were cast with the heads and scales in relief.... 
These cast plates are not likely to date before 1785, 
and all but a handful belong to the first half of the 
nineteenth century. (Noel Hume 1974:217-218) 

Although this would seem to indicate a post-1800 

deposition for the dragon plates, the weight of the evidence 

at the Dobree Site calls for an alternative explanation. In 

view of the complete lack of positive temporal markers for 

the third quarter of the 18th century, particularly the 

absence of the creamware-pearlware ceramic series in the 

features, it is suggested that the dating of this type of 

sideplate is in need of revision. At least at Frederica, 

another "handful" of plates, both cast and engraved, have 

been found to predate the 19th century by perhaps 50 years. 

Only further research will determine if these sideplates are 

indeed isolated examples at Frederica or are common at other 

contemporaneous sites. If these artifacts are restricted to 

Frederica during this time period, an essential question for 

future researchers will be to determine whether they are the 

product of local or nonlocal craftsmen. 



Clothing Group 

With two exceptions, the artifact classes making up this 
group are the same as those used by South and are 



126 

self-explanatory. The exceptions consisted of the modifica- 
tion of one artifact class and the creation of a new one. In 
the present format the Glass Bead class has been expanded to 
include a shell bead since both types are assumed to have had 
similar decorative functions (see Figure 5-16). A 
Miscellaneous Clothing class was added to the Clothing group 
(Class 26-B in Table 5-1) in order that artifacts unique to 
Frederica, but logically included in an artifact group, be 
considered in the analyisis. This class consists of two 
sequins and three decorative braid fragments from Feature 3 
and five small brass clothing studs or rings, two of which 
were found in the wells. 

Personal Group 

Coins, keys and personal items make up the three classes 
for this group. Of the 12 coins found, 9 are George II 
young-head half pennies. After conservation and 
stabilization, the following dates could be read on these 
coins: one at 1737, three at 1738, and five at 1739. The 
presence of all of these artifacts is believed to have 
resulted from loss. Two half pennies were found in the 
Feature 1 and Feature 2 wells but the rest were associated 
with the plow zone; no definite "artifact trap" locations 
could be discerned at the site. Three silver Spanish coins 
were also found in the plow zone. As evinced by their 
locations, the Spanish coins appear to have been subject to 
similar loss processes as their British counterparts. Two 
were recovered from squares that also contained British 



i-t) CXI 

*i t 

oq co 
3 w 
a> 

3 cr 
ct c 
• o 

h- 1 

CD 



TO 
CT 
rt 



o 
D 



129 

coins; the third was found in a square that was adjacent to 
two other units that contained half pennies. 

Six of the coins were found either in or immediately 
adjacent to the three wells uncovered at the site. This 
indicates that activities were performed at these locations 
which resulted in the loss of small pocket valuables. 
Laundering activities would be expected to result in the loss 
of coins (falling from pockets) near a source of water (the 
wells ) . 

Personal Items, the last class in the group, were not 
numerous at the site. Artifacts in this class consisted only 
of a single lead pencil from Feature 1 and five more from the 
plowzone, along with a single white clay wig curler and a 
small ivory handle (Figure 5-17). 

Tobacco Pipe Group 

This group consists exclusively of fragments of white 
clay tobacco pipes. Both stem and bowl fragments are 
included in the frequencies given in Table 5-1. Maker's 
marks noted include "TD" (27 examples), and "WM" (2 
examples), and 1 each of "IW" and "RE." A total of 23 bowl 
fragments bearing the decoration of the British royal arms 
were also noted. 

Actitvities Group 

As South has pointed out, the Activities group would be 
expected to display considerable internal variability between 
artifact classes due to the wide range of activities 



CD 




•o 




-t-> 




CD 




~rl 




r-H 


4-- 


C/J 




IT 


s n 


cd 




E 


e 


<D 






bO 






T3 


CO 






C 


Sh 


o 




CO 


Cm 


Q 




CO 


Sh 






4-3 


CD 


CO 




c 


rH 






CD 


Sh 


o 




E 




co 


* 


bO 


o 


Q-i 


CO 


CO 




•rH 


CD 


Sh 


bC 


■4-3 


•rH 


<4H 


•rH 




c 






^! 


c 


CD 






CD 


H 




d. 


CX 


CO • 


rH 






0 CD 


•rH 


o 


<*H 


Sh rH 


O 


Sh 


i — 1 


CO 


c 


o 


CO 


s: cd 


CD 






CO Sh 


CL, 


r-H 




•rH | 




CO 


£ 


C <4H 


T3 


C 


CO 


CO r-H 


CO 


o 


•-H 


CX CO 


CD 


CO 


-P 


CO £ 




Sh 








CD 


Sh 






PL, 




ow: 


ow : 






Sh 


Sh 


t- 










O 


CD 


E 


1 


u 


r—i 


O 


LO 




TD 


4-3 




CX 


■o 




CD 


o 




o 


Sh 


Eh 




CQ 


3 








faO 









132 

represented by the classes ( 1 977a : 99- 1 00 ) . In the present 
study, South's classes have been adopted with little 
modification in order to allow comparison with the South 
Carolina sites. The following discussion does not include 
farm tools, stub-stemmed pipes, or Colono-Afro pottery since 
examples of these classes were not found at Frederica. 

Construction tools from the features consist only of a 
carpenter plane bit and a three-sided file (Features 1 and 3, 
respectively). The plowzone contained a three-sided file, 
the base of an auger or gouge, part of a chisel and an axe 
shim. All artifacts in this class are of iron (Figure 5-18). 

Toys were limited to the plowzone. An iron mouth harp, 
one clay marble, a lead wizzer, and a possible bone whistle 
compose the artifacts in this class (Figure 5-18). Fishing 
gear consists only of three lead weights. Two are 
musketballs with a central hole and the third is a flat 
fragment of lead rolled into a tube. The Storage Items class 
refers primarily to iron barrel bands found at the site. In 
addition, 3 of the 38 items listed for the features refer to 
the three wooden barrels located at the bottoms of the wells 
(see Chapter VI ) . 

Ethnobotanical artifacts consist only of fragments of 
nuts and seeds from edible plants. Oak leaves, pine bark, 
and other extraneous plant matter were not included. As 
might be expected, recovery of the artifacts in this class 
was highly dependent on the preservation characteristics of 
the soils in each of the proveniences in which they were 



Figure 5-18. Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree Site 

Row 1: Three-sided file, iron. 

Row 2: Auger or gouge, iron. 

Row 3: Lead wizzer; iron mouth harp. 

Row 4: Ferrier's tool, iron. 

Row 5: Iron str i ke-a-light . 

Row 6: Iron sai lmaker ' s needle. 



135 

found. The lower waterlogged portions of the wells were 
especially conducive to floral preservation. Feature 1 
contained 20 peach pit fragments ( Prunus persica ) , a possible 
watermelon seed (cf. Citrullus lanatus ) , 2 possible laurel 
cherry pits (cf. Prunus caroliniana ) , a single persimmon seed 
( Diospyros virginiana ) , 3 fragmentary squash-pumpkin seeds 
( Curcurbita sp.) and 2 hickory nut fragments ( Carya sp.). 
Approximately two liters of oak twigs, pine bark, acorns, and 
charcoal were also found. Eleven peach pit fragments were 
recovered from the Feature 2 well. Four other features 
contained organic remains. Feature 29 had 4 burned peach 
pits along with a tupelo seed ( Nyssa bif lora ) that was not 
included in the Ethnobotanical class. included in the class 
( Nyssa bif lora ) . Three hickory nut fragments were associated 
with Feature 18, and Feature 7 contained a squash-pumpkin 
seed. The nine ethnobotanical specimens recovered from the 
plowzone are fragments of peach pits that had been charred. 
Carbonization of the pits is believed to be responsible for 
their preservation. 

A single Stable and Barn class artifact was found in the 
trash-filled depression defined as Feature 11. This 
artifact, shown in Figure 5-18, is an iron ferrier's tool 
used to clean the frog of a horse's hoof (Charles Fairbanks: 
personal communication). Plowzone artifacts in this class 
include a brass harness ring and an iron snaffle bit with a 
brass side boss (Figure 5-19). A similar bit from Virginia 
which differs only by the presence of a snaffle loop and an 



136 




137 

oval rather than square boss is attributed by Noel Hume to 
the third quarter of the 18th century (1974:241). 

The Miscellaneous Hardware class covers a variety of 
artifact types such as iron cotter pins, rivets, bolts, and 
washers. Several kinds of tools are also included: three 
case knives from the features and four from the plowzone, an 
iron strike-a-light from the plowzone, and 10 gray flint 
strike-a-lights in the form of nodules with highly battered 
edges, also found in the plowzone (Figure 5-18). Additional 
artifacts counted in this class are six miscellaneous iron 
strap fragments. They are similar in appearance to barrel 
bands but are much thicker and heavier. Although several had 
cut marks indicating a possible metal working association, 
which would have warranted inclusion in the Other class, this 
could not be definitely established. 

The Other class of artifacts is comprised of a number of 
artifact types not considered by South, due either to their 
absence at the sites he excavated or to differences in 
interpretation between South and the present author 
concerning artifact function. Since this class consists of 
artifacts that are thought to reflect specialized 
manufacturing activities (bone button blanks, kiln wasters 
and furniture, silversmithing debris), it was decided to 
include flint debitage, which is believed to be an example of 
a specialized activity by-product: the shaping or 
modification of gunflints. Only those debitage fragments 
that are similar in appearance to the gray and honey-colored 



138 

gunflints recovered at Frederica have been counted. A total 
of 1008 fragments was recovered, with the plowzone accounting 
for 828. Only 4% (49 fragments) were honey-colored. This 
indicates that local flint knapping was performed primarily 
on gray flint for the production or modification of spall 
gunflints. As Stephen White has suggested (1975:71), gray 
flint nodules left from ships' ballast probably provided the 
raw material for gunflint production at Frederica. Ballast 
flint was common enough at Frederica to be used as a flooring 
material and as an aggregate in the masonry walls of one of 
the fort's storehouses (Manucy 1962:59-63). Blade gunflints 
were apparently modified but not produced at the site. 

Another type of artifact included in this same class was 
lead waste. The characteristics of this type of artifact 
include flattened, globular drops or pools with one side (the 
bottom) exhibiting sand impressions while the top is very 
smooth. These lead "blobs" are believed to be a by-product 
of the manufacture of musketballs and shot. The sand 
impressions noted on the bottom of almost all the lead waste 
fragments indicates that this manufacturing activity took 
place outdoors or over a sand-covered floor. The features 
contained 20 of these lead fragments and the plowzone 53. 

A third type of previously undefined artifact that is 
included in the manufacturing class for Frederica is scrap 
leather, represented by seven small cut strips and fragments 
that were recovered from the lower portion of the combined 
Feature 1 well pit and shaft. Although not numerous, they 



139 



are clearly the waste product of some form of leather working 
activity . 

Another artifact counted in this class is the complete 
iron sailmaker's needle shown in Figure 5-18. This unusual 
item, which is certainly evidence of a specialized activity, 
was recovered in a trash pit (Feature 16). 

The class labelled Military Objects is made up almost 
entirely of artillery ammunition. Five iron hollow shot 
fragments and one solid grape shot were found in the 
plowzone. The partial hollow shot shown in Figure 5-20 was 
the only artifact of this class present in the features; it 
was associated with the fill of the Feature 3 well shaft. 
Although not particularly numerous, fragments of bombs are 
found at most of the colonial sites at Frederica. Their 
presence at domestic sites in the town may be attributed to 
the explosion of the powder magazine in 17^3, which would 
have deposited bomb fragments in a widely dispersed pattern 
over the town. The presence of the bomb fragment in Feature 
3 is assumed to be a result of inclusion during the filling 
of the well. 

A brass military insignia in an anchor and rope design 
is the only other item to be classified as a military object 
(Figure 5-20). It was found in the plow zone. 

Classification Format; Hird Site 

Archeological data from the Hird Site were reanalyzed by 
the author in order to derive a sample comparable with the 
Dobree sample described above. The original analysis cards 



Figure 5-20. Military Artifacts, Dobree Site. 

Top: Iron hollow shot. 
Bottom: Brass insignia. 



142 

were used in conjunction with the final report on the Hird 
Site (Honerkamp 1975) in order to classify the artifacts 
using criteria identical to those used at the Dobree Site. 
Although the artifacts themselves were not reanalyzed, the 
previous study was sufficiently detailed to allow 
reclassification and quantification. Table 5-2 lists the 
ceramic data from the site while Table 5-7 contains a summary 
of artifact class frequencies for the features and plowzone. 

Faunal Analysis 
Instead of simply using the faunal material to construct 
bone-artifact ratios, as South does, a more intensive 
analysis was made that allowed between-site comparisons along 
with testing of a model of British colonial resource 
utilization . 

Under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Wing, analysis of 
the Hird and Hawkins-Davison faunal material was carried out 
by Dr. Elizabeth Reitz; the Dobree material was examined by 
the author. Similar methodologies were used by both 
researchers. After being identified, all the bone was 
weighed and counted, and MNI (minimum number of individuals) 
and biomass were calculated whenever possible. Comparability 
of the assemblages was enhanced by the use of the same 
comparative skeletal collections at the Florida State Museum, 
University of Florida. 

Although fragment counts were made for all but the 
"Unidentified Bone" taxon, this information was not used for 
deriving conclusions concerning animal utilization at 



143 



Table 5-7. Artifact Class 


Frequencies , 


Hird Site. 






Plowzone 


Features 


Totals 


Kitchen Group 








1 . Ceramics 


3809 


839 


4648 


2. Wine bottle 


2379 


336 


2715 


3. Case bottle 


373 


96 


469 


4. Tumbler 


13 


3 


16 


j • nidi [JlaLcU o lLdl 


1 64 


Q9 

y •— 


256 


6. Glassware 


175 


48 


223 


7. Tableware 


6 


7 


13 


8. Kitchenware 


7 


2 


9 


Totals 


6926 


1423 


8349 


Architectural Group 








10 Window (t1 s'?'! 


1 43 


23 


1 66 


11. Nails 


1987 


975 


2962 


12. Spikes 


42 


17 


59 


13. Construction hardware 


1 


2 


3 


Totals 


2173 


1017 


3190 


Furniture Group 








15. Furniture hardware 


7 


3 


10 


Arms Group 








16. Musketballs, shot, sprue 


40 


56 


96 


17. Gunflints, gunspalls 


33 


18 


51 


18. Gun parts 


4 


0 


4 


Totals 


77 


74 


151 


Clothing Group 


14 






19. Buckles 


4 


18 


20. Thimbles 


2 


3 


5 


21. Buttons 


26 


10 


36 


23. Pins 


o 


4 


h 


24. Hook and eye fasteners 


1 


0 


1 


25. Bale seals 


0 


1 


1 


26. Glass beads 


7 


22 


29 


Totals 


50 


44 


94 



144 



Table 5-7 (continued) 



Plowzone Features Totals 



Personal Group 

27. Coins 

28. Keys 

29. Personal items 



Totals 



10 



Tobacco Pipe Group 
30. White clay bowl and stems 



1220 



400 



1620 



Activities Group 

33. Toys 

34. Fishing gear 

37. Storage items 

38. Ethnobotanical 
Stable and barn 
Miscellaneous hardware 
Other 



39. 
40. 
41. 



42. Military items 



1 

2 
55 
23 

1 

5 
42 

2 



1 

2 
55 
6 
0 
7 
18 
1 



2 
4 

110 
29 
1 

12 
60 
3 



Totals 



131 



Q2 



223 



Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system 
used by South (1977:95-96). 



145 

Frederica. To assume that the number of bones of a species 
recovered archeologically is indicative of the degree to 
which the species was utilized by the occupants of the site 
is to ignore the effects that such factors as butchering and 
disposal practices, soil acidity, and excavation recovery 
techniques, to name only a few, have on fragment counts. The 
same objections apply to South' s treatment of faunal 
materials whereby bone frequencies are manipulated in the 
same way as artifact frequencies for classes such as nails, 
glass, and ceramics. 

Determination of MNI was based on element pairing, 
relative age as indicated by dental wear/eruption and bone 
fusion, and element size. The material was analyzed in terms 
of all discrete proveniences, that is, each feature was 
treated as a separate analytical unit on the basis of 
evidence of short-term deposition. As Grayson (1973) has 
pointed out, this approach yields results which lie between 
the extremes produced by lumping all proveniences into one 
analytical unit or splitting the units up on the basis of 
arbitrarily defined excavation components such as vertical 
levels or horizontal excavation squares. Since short-term 
deposition could not be assumed for the plow zone material, 
it was treated as a single analytical unit at the Hird Site. 
Only closed context (feature) bone was identified for the 
Dobree Site. By necessity the faunal materials from the 
Hawkins-Davison Site were lumped together since the 
provenience information that would have allowed separation of 



146 

the Hawkins from the Davison bone was not retained during the 
20 years that have elapsed between excavation and analysis of 
this site. The minimum distinction method used on the 
Hawkins-Davison bone probably contributed to the relatively 
small MNI derived for this site. 

Estimating the live and edible meat weight from 
archeological bone presents a number of difficulties for the 
zooarcheologist . White's method (1953) has been expanded 
upon by a number of researchers, but all the calculations 
that have been presented involve the use of a skeletal to 
live weight ratio to obtain a useable meat estimate which is 
multiplied by the MNI for each species. Several drawbacks 
are apparent with this technique, the most serious of which 
stems from the assumption made when multiplying the useable 
meat estimate by the MNI: that one recovered element of an 
animal is equivalent to the entire animal being used and 
discarded at the site. More conservative and presumably 
realistic estimates can be obtained when MNI is replaced with 
archeological bone weight (Wing 1976), but other problems 
remain, such as determining the average live weight of the 
species (which is not constant through time or space) or 
estimating what portion of the animal is or is not "useable." 

Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the biomass 
represented by the archeological bone without reference to 
MNI through the use of the bone weight in an allometric 
equation that yields a corresponding biomass value. Detailed 
discussions of the concepts involved in the use of this 



147 

technique are given by Casteel (1978), Prange et al. (1979), 
Reitz (1979), and Wing and Brown (1979). The principle 
behind the technique is that as the body weight of an animal 
increases, the amount of skeletal weight increases 
logarithmically. This relationship is described by the 
equation 

Y = aX b 

where X is the archeological bone weight in kilograms, Y is 
the biomass in kilograms, b is the slope of the log-log plot, 
and a is the Y-intercept of the log-log regression line 
(Prang et al . 1979:104). The a and b constants presented in 
Table 5-8 have been obtained from calculations based on 
measurements taken on specimens in the Florida State Museum 
collections. It is expected that as more samples are 
included in future calculations, these constants will be 
continually refined. 

The major advantage of the biomass technique is that it 
yields a calculated meat weight that is based on the 
archeological bone actually recovered for each species rather 
than the presumed total live weight of the species. No 
assumptions are needed concerning the original weight of the 
animal or how much of it may or may not have been consumed. 
It is therefore a more conservative and presumably more 
accurate estimator than White's method using a skeletal to 
live weight ratio that is multiplied by the MNI of the 
species represented. 



148 



Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass 
Calculations . 



Taxa 


N 


Slope (b) 


Y-intercept (log a) 


r 


Mammal 


97 


0.90 


1.12 


0.94 


Bird 


307 


0.91 


1 .04 


0.97 


Turtle 


26 


0. 67 


0.51 


0.55 


Snake 


26 


1 .01 


1 .17 


0.97 


Chondrichthyes 


17 


0.86 


1 .68 


0.85 


Osteichthyes 


393 


0.81 


0.90 


0.80 


Non-Perci formes 


119 


0.79 


0.85 


0.88 


Silurif ormes 


36 


0.95 


1 .15 


0.87 


Pleuronect if ormes 


21 


0.89 


1 .09 


0.95 


Percif ormes 


274 


0.83 


0.93 


0.76 


Sparidae 


22 


0.92 


0.96 


0.98 


Sciaenidae 


99 


0.74 


0.81 


0.73 



149 

The estimation of biomass is not without its own set of 
limitations. The main one is that it does not take into 
account the part of the body that is being weighed, for 
instance, 10 grams of caudal fragments produce the same 
biomass value as 10 grams of a femur. In effect, the animal 
is assumed to have the form of "a sausage with a bone running 
through the middle" (Elizabeth Wing: personal communication). 
Despite this problem, there seems to be a great deal more 
validity in using biomass calculations to infer relative 
degrees of species utilization than White's method with its 
potential for inflated live-useable meat weights, or simple 
fragment counts which often only reflect how heavy-handed the 
archeologist was in collecting transporting, or storing the 
samples . 

Raw data derived from the Dobree Site faunal analysis is 
presented in Appendix D. Table 5-9 is a species list and 
summary of taxa bone weight, MNI, and biomass information. 
Similar summaries are given by Reitz for the Hird and 
Hawkins-Davison sites (1979:276-281), but the biomass totals 
have been recalculated using refined a and b constants in the 
present study. Tables 5-10 through 5-12 present summaries, 
in terms of MNI and biomass, for six faunal categories at the 
three sites. 

The next chapter is devoted to the description and 
analysis of the form, content, and structure of the arche- 
ological features encountered at the sites. Once this is 
accomplished, it will be possible to address the research 



150 

hypotheses referred to in Chapter III in terms of the 
artifacts, features, and contextual information that make up 
the archeological evidence at Frederica. 



151 



Table 5-9- Species List for the Dobree Site, Lot 31 South, 
Freder ica . 



MNI Weight Biomass,kg 
Species Ct # % gms __# %_ 

Unidentified bone 963.8 

Unidentified mammal 4831 59^3 . 3 79.75 38.0 

Procyon lotor 39 7 5.5 36.1 0.76 0.3 

racoon 

Didelphis marsupialis 10 2 1.6 7.9 0.17 0.08 

opossum 

Sylvilagus sp 1 1 0.8 0.5 0.01 0.004 

rabbit 

Sylvilagus cf palustris 1 1 0.8 0.4 0.01 0.004 

marsh rabbit 

Canis sp 2 1 0.8 0.5 0.01 0.004 

dog 

Felis sp 40 1 0.8 10.8 0.22 0.1 

cat 

Equus cabellas 4 2 1.6 235.4 3,63 1.7 

domestic horse 

Artiodactyl 28 77.0 1.56 0.7 

even-toed ungulates 

Bos taurus 248 21 16.4 7220.2 97.57 46.5 

domestic cow 

Sus scrofa 151 17 13-3 630. 6 10.74 5.1 

domestic/feral pig 

cf Odocoileus virginianus 2 2.0 0.04 0.01 

white-tailed deer 

Odocoileus virginianus 87 15 11.7 405.5 7.23 3.4 

white-tailed deer 

Capra or Ovis sp 2 1 0.8 1.1 0.03 0.01 

goat or sheep 



152 



Table 5-9 (continued) 



Species Ct 

Unidentified bird 81 

cf Branta canadensis 1 
Canada goose 

Anatidae 3 
ducks 

Anas sp 3 
surface feeding ducks 

Aytha sp 110. 
diving ducks 

Aix sponsa 
wood duck 

cf Gallus gallus 
domestic chicken 

Gallus gallus 

domestic chicken 

Unidentified reptile 



MNI Weight Biomass,kg 
# % gms _# % 



All igator mississippiensis 1 
American alligator 

Unidentified turtle 35 

Kinosternon sp 1 
mud turtle 



1 0. 



24.8 0.44 0.2 
0.1 0.002 0.0009 



0. 



0.01 0.004 



3 2.3 1.9 0.03 0.01 



0.8 0.01 0.004 



1 0.8 0.4 0.008 0.003 



0.2 0.004 0.001 



18 6 4.7 10.3 0.18 0.08 



0.2 0.01 0.004 
9.7 0.12 0.05 



14.4 0.33 0.1 
1 0.8 1.4 0.03 0.01 



Terrapene Carolina 1 1 0. 

box turtle 



Malaclemys terrapin 
diamondback terrapin 

cf Chrysemys scripta 
yellow-bellied turtle 



Chrysemys scripta 1 1 0 

yellow bellied turtle 



2.3 0.05 0.02 



4 3.1 3.3 0.10 0.04 



0.5 0.01 0.004 



1.5 0.04 0.01 



153 



Table 5-9 (continued) 



MNI Weight Biomass,kg 
Species Ct # % gms # % 

cf Gopherus polyphemus 2 2.8 0.07 0.03 

gopher tortoise 

Gopherus polyphemus 1 1 0.8 0.3 0.01 0.004 
gopher tortoise 

Colubridae 2 0.5 0.006 0.002 

Colubrids (snakes) 

Rana / Bufo 9 0.3 0.002 0.0004 

frog or toad 

Carcharinus sp 2 2 1.6 0.4 0.06 0.02 

requiem shark 

Unidentified fish 1347 165.8 2.63 1.2 

Siluriformes 61 4.6 0.08 0.03 

catf ishes 

Ariidae 26 3.7 0.07 0.03 

sea catfishes 

Arius felis 91 10 7.8 34.5 0.60 0.2 

sea catfish 

Bagre marinus 34 5 3.9 11.5 0.20 0.09 

gafftopsail catfish 

Archosargus probatocephalus 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.01 0.004 
sheepshead 

Scianidae 12 10.3 0.30 0.1 
drums 

cf Pogonias cromis 1 0.9 0.03 0.01 
black drum 

Pogonias cromis 22 6 4.7 41.3 0.72 0.3 
black drum 

Scianops ocellata 49 8 6.2 87.8 1.51 0.7 
red drum 



154 



Table 5-9 (continued) 



MNI Weight Biomass,kg 

Species Ct # % gms # % 

Mugil sp 13 5 3.9 1.2 0.03 0.01 
mullet 

Totals 7282 128 15989.5 209.73 



155 



Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree 
Site, Frederica. 

Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined 



Taxa 


# 


MNI 

% 


Biomass 
kg % 




Domestic Animals 


46 


36.2 


108.8 


87. 


4 


Wild Terrestrial 


27 


21.2 


8.1 


6. 


5 


Wild Birds 


5 


3.9 


0. 05 


0. 


04 


Aquatic Reptiles 


8 


6.2 


0.3 


0. 


2 


Fish and Sharks 


37 


29. 1 


3.1 


2. 


5 


Commensals 


4 


3.1 


3.8 


3. 


1 


Totals 


127 




124. 3 







Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Not Determined 

Biomass 



Taxa 


kg 


% 


Mammals 


81 .35 


95.3 


Birds 


0.45 


0.5 


Reptiles 


0.42 


0.4 


Amphibians 


0.002 


0.002 


Fish 


3.11 


3.6 


Total 


85.33 





156 



Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hawkins- 
Davison Site, Frederica. 



Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined 
MNI Biomass 



1 d A d 


# 


% 


kff 


% 




T^^m^o^~T/*> Urn' mol cj 

jjoniesuic H.niiiia.-Lo 


1 Q 


42 . 4 


77 5 


82 . 


4 


Wild Terrestrial 


1 1 


24. 4 


14.8 


15. 


7 


Wild Birds 


7 


15.6 


0.9 


1 . 


0 


Aquatic Reptiles 


2 


4.4 


0.1 


0. 


1 


Fish and Sharks 


5 


11.1 


0.7 


0. 


7 


Commensals 


1 


2.2 


0.01 


0. 


01 


Totals 


45 




94.0 







Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Not Determined 

Biomass 

Taxa kg %_ 



Mammals 0.62 20.1 

Birds 0.56 18.2 

Reptiles 0.01 0.3 

Fish and Sharks 1 .89 61.4 

Total 3.08 



157 



Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird 
Site, Frederica. 

Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined 
MNI Biomass 



Taxa 


if 


7> 


Kg 


t 




Domestic Animals 


hi 


d. u . u 


1 P. Q O 


7 7 
f ( . 


o 


Wild Terrestrial 


40 


17.0 


40.7 


16. 


7 


Wild Birds 


49 


20.9 


2.0 


0. 


3 


Aquatic Reptiles 


7 


3.0 


0.6 


0. 


2 


Fish and Sharks 


87 


37.0 


10.4 


4. 


3 


Commensals 


5 


2.1 


0. 1 


0. 


004 


Totals 


235 




243.0 







Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Not Determined 

Biomass 



Taxa 


kS 


% 


Mammals 


180.71 


90.9 


Birds 


1.31 


0.7 


Reptiles 


0.46 


0.2 


Amphibians 


0.01 


0.005 


Fish 


16.21 


8.2 


Total 


198.70 





CHAPTER VI 
SITE FORM AND CONTENT 



Dobree Site Features 
This section describes the archeological features 
excavated at the Dobree Site in terms of their form and 
content. Since this site has not been reported previously, 
the feature discussion will be in more detail than that for 
the other sites. 

A total of 30 man-made disturbances were identified at 
the Dobree Site and designated as features (Figure 6-1). 
Feature designations were made on the basis of the form and 
presumed function of the disturbance and/or the type or 
quantity of associated artifacts. For instance, some 
postholes were designated as features if they contained large 
amounts of 18th century refuse believed to have been 
purposefully deposited as fill, while other postholes lacking 
such material did not receive feature designations. The 
relatively small quantities of artifacts associated with the 
nonfeature postholes are thought to have been inadvertently 
included in the fill for each posthole during backfilling, or 
to have fallen in by chance after the posts had been removed 
or had disintegrated (Noel Hume 1969:135-137). The 
difference in artifact deposition associated with feature 
versus nonfeature postholes is discussed later in this 

158 



CO 






oo -=r 








CD 






C\J 














o - •> 














T— (\J 








+J 






•> ' CVI 


C\j 


o 




03 






cr> * •» 




ro 




<D 






~VO 


CO 












»- C\) 


CvJ 


oo 
C\J 




0) 


CD 


co 


vo ro o 


LO t>- 












OJ 


«- C\J 






•H 




cv 


LO - •> 














-CM 


.=r vo 








rC 




=T r- X— 


«- C\l 


OO 


OJ 


0) 


CD 












<D 




























£ 














o 














Q 












ch 














c 


O 










u s 


re 


O, 










o 


Eh 


CT3 






CO 




CD 




s 


CD 




4-5 


co 


C 


CD 




a 




•H 


CD 


cti 


T3 


0) 


>^ 




Pl, 


rH 


rH 


CC 


4-5 


Eh 






o 


rH 


co 


■H 




CO 


.c 




CD 




CO 


CD 


rH 


co 


4-5 


O 


rH 


o 


L 


rH 


cd 


CO 


CO 


rH 


a 




CD 


1-4 


o 




ct3 


E 


4-3 




H 








O 


rC 












o 


CD 

b 













I 

vo 
CD 



1 5 0 




161 



chapter. For now, suffice it to say that the arbitrary 
divisions made for the inclusion of a disturbance under the 
"feature" category seem to be justified using the criteria 
listed above. For convenience of discussion, the features 
have been divided into four categories: wells, trash pits, 
postholes, miscellaneous features and the Feature 29 trench. 
A breakdown of the artifact classes according to type of 
feature is presented in Table 6-1. 

Wells 

Three barrel wells, designated as Features 1 through 3, 
were excavated at the Dobree Site. In the following 
discussion the term "well pit" refers to the large hole that 
was initially dug into the water table while "well shaft" 
refers to the barrel casing that was placed in the well pit. 
Identification and separation of shaft versus pit fill was 
made whenever possible through color distinctions in the 
respective fill soils. 

As with most other features, the archeological 
visibility (Deetz 1977:9^) of Feature 1 was very poor when it 
was first uncovered. The photograph shown in Figure 6-2, 
taken just after the plowzone in Square 31 had been 
excavated, illustrates the initial lack of distinctive form 
or soil color on which the separation of the pit and shaft 
could be made (the well pit is composed of light mottled sand 
while the shaft area is the even dark soil between the bricks 
and the light sand). As the excavation of the well 
progressed, provenience distinctions within and around the 



162 



m^r^r cn lo on on o 
cnvo o co 
cnoo ud m 



LO 

c\j oo 

OO LO 
cn C— 
LO t^- 



r-o o 
vc on 
m cn 



a; 




-p 




•H 


Q> 


CO 


CVJ 


CD 


CO 


<D 


CD 


£h 




X) 




o 




Q 








03 


o 


S. 


co 




■H 


-1-3 








CD 




En 




„ 

CO 


1 CO 


<D 


-P CD 




CO i— 1 


O 


O O 


C 


a, jz 






3 




cr 




CD 




Sh 




En 






SZ CO 


CO 


CO -P 


CO 


CO «H 


a3 


M PL, 


i — i 


E— i 


U 




-P 




o 




CO 




Cm 


CO 


■H 


rH 


4-3 


1 — 1 


(h 


CD 


<XJ 












1 




CD 




i — I 








CO 




Eh 





r- COWCOOJVDOO C— 
C\l OO t— CM LO CM OO 

c~- m m LO 



VaOOOOOOOOO 



oo^rooocMono 
.=r =r m vo 

LO t- r- 



cn vo co on coloo o 

O CM ON LO LO m 

tr- on cm 



Cn 
CO 



<D CD 



3 

O 

a 
c 

CD 
O 

4-3 



CO 4-> 

o o 



CD CD ca 

t, L s 

co cd c 

3 2 CD 

CO CD ,C 

CO i — I o 



4-2 
3 

CD 

_ Sh C 

■H X! JO 0 (fl 
E H g 

CO CD CD £) U 
S-.GC0Ec0cG.O-P 
d) -H (d D £ H (C -H 



«- cm m^r to vo c— oo 



CM LO 
CO VO 
t — CO 



-=r cm 



vo CM 
CM *- 



o on 

CM 

VJO 

t~- on 



on 

LO LO 
O CP. 

O <- 



g 

bO >, 

w O 
C 

4^> CD 

JC 3 

faO cr 

•H CD 

CD S- 

3 ^ 

0 CD 

c c 

o o 



<C CQ 

I I 

cn on 



LO. LO O *- O 

cn cn 



O vc O O 



CM Cn 

cn *- 

LO 



3 

73 
Sh 

CO CO 

x; 4-i 

C cd 

o a 



bD 



o o 

3 O 

3 CO Sh i — I 

O CO CD 4-> 

"C h ^ n tn 

£ »H »H C O 

•h (A a o o 



o <- cm on. 



O OO O O O CO 

CM CM 



O cm cn cm o on 

CO VO 

co o 









CO 




3 




-a 




M 




CO 




jC 






3 


CD 


o 


S- 


in 


3 


a 


4-3 






CD 


c 






3 




4-5 








c 






LO 






b 





163 



LT><— v£) CM O O CM t— 
«- «- CM 



<-<-C\JOOOOOO 



O O f- r- 



o ;> o 



ooooooooo 



I oo 

P> CD 

CO i — I 

o o 

PL. jC 



O O r- O O O O O O <- 



Xi CO 
00 -P 

co -h 

L Cl. 
H 



cmoj=t^-t-^-ooo 



co c — 

CM r- 



(\iocn'-cr>oo(\it- 



CD 
3 
Em 

a 

00 00 



-P 03 

o a 

oo 

00 C 

- bO 

00 

rH » 

rH 00 00 
CO -P 

•P 'H (J 

Qj CD rH CX 
J* Cm 

&0 C C 
3 3 3 

s o o 



00 

00 CD 00 

CD i — I C 

i — I jO o 

J* E -p 

3 jz: 3 



co 

Eh 

o 

00 

00 CO 
-H C 

o 









bO 








C 


CO 






•rH 


Sh 








a) 




CO 


-P 


c 




T3 


o 


CD 




Cti 


rH 


p 




CD 


o 


co 








03 






CO 


Cm 




rH 


3 






rH 


O 


CD 




CD 


CD 


t>5 




£5 


C 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 




H 




rH 


T3 


co 




rH 


C 


a) 


CO 


CD 


cO 


co 


co 


O 






cc 


CO 


^! 


d) 


i — l 





PQ H CQ CO O, 



O rH O S 

O CO 

E 0Q • . 

< CQ 

II 

o^o <- CM PO^T ITiVOvO 
t-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 



CO 

c 

CO O 
C 00 00 

•rH >, 

O CD CD 

o w a. 



C-CO 
CM CM CM 



CXl o 
3 X) 

o 

O CO 



164 



C\JOOOOOCOC\J 

m to 



.=r co <— 

r- O 

CM 



OOOOOOOlTiO^T'-O 



oooooooo'-o^ro 



J-5 

c 
0 

B 

td 
s- 

W 



I CO 

4-> CD 

CO i— I 

o o 



s: co 

CO 4-> 

CO -H 

s- Pu 
H 



OOOOOOOOOOCXJO 



o o o o o o <- 



t— o o o o 

«- CM 



0) 

-p 
co 

> 

co 

c 

in 

CD 

E 
c 

CD 
JC 
■P 



CO 

Eh 

bO 

vC 
O 



Cvjoooooo-ooom 
cm .=r co 



o 
o 

4J 
C 

cx| o 

O 
Sh 
O 

CO 
CD 



co 



CO CD CD CD -H 
CD E -P C T3 



C Xi 

i-H Sh 

CO CO CO CO 

O 

a; 



H bOScO-HCOCC CO 

O CD 3: 4-> cO CO >, rH 

O h04-> CD O i — l S- CO 

-P C CO O WJ2 CO H CO -P 

•HlC(HOHIl)tH4J O 

t. >,co sh o ,c co co .c r-i 

CO O -H -P O -P -P 4J H +J «H 

t^H^cOUCOWCOSOS 



r- W r03" LOVO NOO C^O r- OJ 

(^onrnc^(Y^(Y-)fv-)forn^rj3-^r 



o 

Cm 

CO 
CD 

CO • 
CO ^ 
CO VD 
r-H ON 
O I 
LO 
■P CTv 
O •• 
CO C— 
Cm t*- 
•H ON 
4-3 1- 
S_ w 

CO 

Cm -P 
O 3 
O 

faOCO 

c 

•H >, 

S- jO 

CD 

jo -a 

B <D 

3 CO 
S 3 
CO 



C 

CO 

X3 

T3 
CD 
> 

J- 

CD 
T3 

0 

CO 

CO 

CD 

a 

c 

CD 

cr 
0 

Sh 
Cm 

CD 

C 

o 

CQ 
JO 



Figure 6-2. Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree 
Site. 



Figure 6-3. Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barrel 
Well, Dobree Site. 



Figure 6-2. Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree 
Site. 



Figure 6-3. Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barrel 
Well, Dobree Site. 



167 



well became easier to make. The Figure 6-3 photograph, taken 
after excavating 0.08 meter of the top of the well, indicates 
the increased visibility that became apparent with increasing 
depth . 

Feature 1 was excavated by first taking down the east 
half of the entire well in order to reveal an unambiguous 
profile of the shaft and pit (Figure 6-4). Although the 
bottom of the pit was not reached due to the presence of 
ground water, the bottom of the shaft was located through the 
discovery of the bottom half of the lowest barrel. 
Preservation of the staves is attributed to their position in 
the anaerobic, water-logged environment below the water 
table. Except for this lowest portion, only the presence of 
regularly spaced iron barrel hoops and the dark gray fill in 
the shaft marked the position of the barrels. 

The walls of the pit were vertical on the north while 
sloping slightly inward on all others. The pit was 2.15 
meters north-south by 1.80 meters east-west as measured at 
the top of the feature just below the 0.20 meter thick 
plowzone. Ground water was encountered at approximately 1.65 
meters below the ground surface. Excavation of the pit had 
to be halted after removing 0.15 meter of mud at this depth 
due to the danger of creating a sump that would cause the 
collapse of one or more of the surrounding walls in the 
square. The highly mottled appearance of the pit fill is 
probably a result of the mixing of the dark topsoil with the 
lighter sterile sands that occured during backfilling of the 



169 




170 

pit, while the contrasting dark soil in the shaft is thought 
to be composed primarily of dark topsoil sand. Also 
accounting for the darker color of the shaft fill is its high 
organic content. Large amounts of bone, leaves, twigs, and 
other organic debris were recovered from the shaft but not 
the pit (see Chapter V). The large quantities of artifacts 
deposited indicate that this well was in use and filled 
during a period of habitation at the Dobree Site that was 
characterized by the generation of considerable amounts and 
types of domestic refuse. 

Abandoned wells functioned as convenient depositories 
for refuse at many British colonial sites. Filling the well 
shaft served not only to eliminate accumulated trash but also 
to remove the potential hazard that an open shaft posed to 
livestock as well as humans (Noel Hume 1969a: 144). A 
possible terminus post quern of 1740 can be established for 
the backfilling of the shaft by the presence of a sherd of 
refined agateware, which has a beginning manufacturing date 
of sometime in the mid-l8th century according to Noel Hume 
(1974:132) and of 1740 according to South (1977a:211). The 
construction of the well pit could not be more closely dated 
due to the broad manufacturing ranges of the ceramic types 
recovered from it. The mean ceramic date, calculated from 
181 ceramic fragments, was 1749.2. 

Feature 1 contained the only complete wine bottle found 
at the site. The upright position of the bottle (Figure 6-4) 
and the presence of a wooden stopper in the mouth suggest 



171 

that this item may have been stored in the well but not 
retrieved when the shaft was filled. It is therefore an 
example of an in situ -de facto artifact (South 1977a:297) 
since it has a direct archeological context relationship with 
locational aspects of storage behavior in the systematic 
context, in this case the storage of a presumedly alcoholic 
beverage. The presence of whole pins, buttons, and buckles 
in the well fill is also seen as resulting from loss. These 
items probably were accidentally included in the refuse 
material used to fill the well shaft. All other artifacts 
found in the well are considered to be examples of displaced 
refuse, with the possible exception of the fragments of oak 
and pine material which may have fallen into the well while 
it was in use. The variety of ceramic, glass, and metal 
artifacts that comprised the displaced refuse is considered 
to be indicative of a domestic occupation, and hypotheses 
relating to this question are tested in the next chapter. 

Directly to the west of Feature 1 was another barrel 
well, designated as Feature 2 (Figure 6-1). The east edge of 
this feature had been uncovered during the excavation of 
Feature 1 in Square 31, and a profile photograph of a portion 
of the well pit was made. As seen in Figure 6-5, the pit 
walls were nearly vertical. Placement of the barrel shaft 
was slightly south of the pit center. Although the top of 
this feature was discerned as soon as the 0.22 meter plow 
zone had been removed, a distinction between the pit and 
shaft could not be made until 0.27 meter of the entire well 



Figure 6-5. Profile of Feature 2 Well Pit, Dobree 
Site. 



173 




174 



had been excavated. The pit measured approximately 1.55 
meters north-south and 1.45 meters east-west at this depth. 
Due to its considerable depth and the presence of ground 
water (1.64 meters below surface) that had been heavily 
recharged by recent winter rains, it was not possible to 
reach the bottom of this feature. Excavation continued 
another 0.4 meter below the water table before being 
abandoned, but shaft versus pit provenience distinctions 
could not be made in the final muddy 40 centimeters. No 
artifacts were detected below this depth using a 1.5 meter 
steel probe, although the presence of several barrel staves 
was indicated. By extending an arm three quarters of a meter 
into the mud, the author was able to confirm the presence of 
the wood staves but was unable to retrieve any. Barrel hoops 
were entirely absent from the shaft of Feature 2. The 
barrels used to create the shaft casing probably were of all- 
wood construction. 

The shape of the well pit changed noticeably as the 
excavation progressed. Figure 6-6 illustrates the squared 
appearance of the south and west walls (0.83 meter below 
surface). Also apparent in this photograph is the outline of 
the disintegrated barrel casing. A close-up view, shown in 
Figure 6-7, reveals the outline of the disintegrated barrel 
along with water-sorted sand in the shaft fill. Unlike 
Feature 1, almost all of the artifacts found in the second 
well came from the 0.27 meter top portion directly below the 
plow zone. The mottled fill soil from the pit and shaft are 



Figure 6-6. Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site. 



Figure 6-7. Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree 
Site. 



177 

quite similar in appearance and are probably of similar 
origin: mixed sterile subsoils and topsoils. The water- 
sorted nature of the shaft backfill and the absence of refuse 
indicate that this well took longer to fill than Feature 1 . 
Several fragments of refined agateware associated with the 
well pit establish a possible terminus post quern of 17^4 for 
the construction of Feature 2. A mean ceramic date of 1747.9 
was calculated for the well using 37 identifiable sherds. 

Feature 3 differed from the other two wells by having a 
square pit in which the barrel shaft was centrally located. 
The profile shot shown in Figure 6-8 and the overhead view in 
Figure 6-9, both taken after the shaft had been reamed out, 
provide graphic evidence of the square corners and straight 
walls of this feature. The pit measured 2.0 meters north- 
south by 2.0 meters east-west. Besides its shape, the manner 
in which the pit was backfilled is also distinctive. The 
barrel shaft was enclosed by a dark layer of fill that formed 
a circular outline within the square pit (Figure 6-9). After 
abandonment of the well, the shaft was backfilled with dark 
humic sand and a considerable number of nearly complete glass 
and ceramic artifacts (Figures 5-9 through 5-12). 

Excavation of Feature 3 was similar to that of the other 
wells. The top portion of the feature, immediately below the 
0.26 meter thick plow zone, had to be removed as a combined 
shaft-pit unit until a distinction could be made between the 
fill material in each provenience. This top portion was 0.11 
meter thick. The feature was profiled until water was 



Figure 6-8. Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well, Dobree 
Site. 



Figure 6-9. Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site. 



180 

reached at 1.28 meters below ground surface. Thereafter, the 
north and south halves of the well were taken down 
simultaneously. A well point connected to a gasoline-powered 
diaphram pump was used to remove the ground water down to 
2.07 meters below ground surface, where excavation was halted 
due to excess ground water. 

The shaft fill changed markedly at 1.45 meters below the 
surface. At this point a thin, flat fragment of unidentified 
wood was found lying horizontally in the shaft. Below this 
wood the fill consisted of light gray sand with some light 
tan mottling, rather than the dark gray artifact-bearing soil 
in the upper portion of the shaft. Use of the probe failed 
to detect the presence of artifacts in the unexcavated bottom 
of the well, although barrel staves were located but not 
recovered. The abrupt change in the lower shaft fill, which 
was similar in appearance to the mottled light gray-tan sand 
in the surrounding pit, may have resulted from part of the 
barrel casing rotting away and the surrounding walls 
collapsing inward. No artifacts were found in this lower 
0.57 meter portion of the shaft fill. 

Artifacts recovered from Feature 3 initially were 
interpreted as indicating that it was filled in later than, 
or at least as late as, the other two wells. Besides finding 
four sherds of refined agateware in the shaft, the top 0.11 
meter shaft-pit portion of the well contained a small sherd 
of scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, for which South 
gives a beginning manufacturing date of 1744 (1977a:210). 



181 



However, it should be noted that the sherd was recovered in a 
mixed provenience level just below the plow zone and may be 
intrusive. Thus a conclusive terminus post quern of 1744 
cannot be definitely established for the filling of the well 
despite the discovery of this ceramic type. A mid-1740s or 
later filling date is also indicated by the presence of two 
fragments of molded white salt glazed stoneware that were 
part of a panelled teapot (Figure 5-8). When mended into a 
single fragment, a distinctive animal-and-shield relief 
design was apparent. Almost identical designs are 
illustrated by Mountford (1971:plates 96,99) for an eight 
panelled teapot and a panelled cast bowl, both in white salt 
glaze stoneware. A date of circa 1745 is attributed to both 
vessels. Even when the relatively "late" molded and scratch 
blue stoneware sherds are included in the mean ceramic date 
calculation, the resulting date of 1746.7 (from a total of 
143 sherds) is slightly earlier than the dates for the other 
two wells. 

Taken together, the three wells accounted for 42.7$ of 
the feature-associated artifacts and 37.6$ by weight of the 
feature bone recovered at the site. When plotted by 
percentage frequencies per group (Figure 6-10), it is 
apparent that the filling of the wells constitutes a major 
method of trash disposal at 18th century Frederica. It is 
suspected that this is true of other, contemporaneous British 
colonial sites. A comparison of the artifacts listed in the 
appendices for these three features indicates considerable 



TO 
c 

CD 
I 




**1 


!— 3 


S3 


CD 




CD 


|U 


A3 


I— 1 


rf 


03 


1— 1 


C 


3" 


03 


T 






CD 


Pi 




ro 








Cfl 





3 CD 
CD 

C 

> CD 
cf O 

0) o 
O T 

s: 

Q CD 
O OQ 

c 3" 

- ha 

CD 

CD O 
03 CD 
ci- 3 
C rt 

CD OP 
03 CD 

- 09 



o o 
cr t 

T 

CD 
CD 

C/3 



183 




184 



diversity in the types and amounts of material deposited in 
them. Since wells were filled relatively quickly, they often 
provide tightly dated archeological time capsules of the 
material culture of a site, but only for a highly 
circumscribed period during the site's occupation. The 
temptation to treat a single well's contents as an ill- 
defined representative sample of the craft activities, 
socioeconomic status, or extent of wild versus domestic 
animal utilization is one that should be resisted until a 
larger or more diverse sample is attained. The individual 
assemblages in the three wells are representative only of the 
wells themselves, not of the site in general, particularly at 
the type level. At the class level the differences are not 
as extreme but are still apparent. An example of this 
diversity is provided by a comparison of the frequency 
percentages of the ceramics, wine bottle, nails, and clay 
pipe classes shown in the following table: 



Table 6- 


-2 . 


Frequency Percentages 
Wells, Dobree Site. 


for Four 


Artifact 


Classes , 






Ceramics 


Wine Bottle 


Nails 


Pipe 


Totals 


Feature 


1 


278 
(24.0$) 


190 
(16.4$) 


416 
(35.9$) 


274 
(23.7$) 


1 158 
(100$) 


Feature 


2 


183 
(31.2$) 


69 
(11.7$) 


175 
(29.8$) 


160 
(27.2$) 


587 
(100$) 


Feature 


3 


190 
(32.5$) 


67 
(11.4$) 


281 
(48.1$) 


46 
(7.9$) 


584 
(100$) 



An important characteristic shared by all three features 
is temporal position. Mean ceramic dates ranging from late 



185 

1746 to early 1749 have been calculated and this close 
temporal contiguity is believed to be indicative of the late 
1740s occupation at the site that is responsible for the 
construction, use, and filling of the three wells. 

Trash Pits 

Sixteen features were designated as trash pits on the 
basis of their shape and/or contents. All these pits were 
mapped horizontally (Figure 6-1), and the larger ones were 
profiled or cross-sectioned and mapped before excavating the 
entire feature. Except for Feature 10, all the trash pits 
were oval or circular in shape, and all appear from 
strat igraphic evidence to have been filled quickly. As shown 
in Figure 6-11, the Feature 5 profile displays distinct 
lenses of soil that may be associated with a gradual filling 
process, but the nearly bell-shaped profile of this feature 
would seem to preclude this interpretation. Long term 
deposition in subsurface pits characteristically results in 
lensing of the fill material along with gently sloping walls 
and rounded rather than sharp edges at the lip of the 
feature. All of these attributes are a result of progressive 
weathering and erosion of the top and walls of the open pit 
(Cornwall 1958:57-60). Besides exhibiting sharply defined 
edges, features that are filled relatively quickly often 
contain homogeneous soil that in profile does not reveal 
erosion lensing. Although the true tops of the features at 
the Dobree site have been obliterated by plowing, the nearly 
vertical walls of Feature 5 can only be associated with a 



Figure 6-11. Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit, 
Dobree Site. 



Figure 6-12. Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash 
Pit, Dobree Site. 



187 




188 



rapidly filled pit. The presence of lensing is attributed to 
distinct soils being used to fill the pit, as might be 
produced from alternate shovelsful of dirt from different 
areas around the feature. 

The fill materials contained in the rest of the trash 
pits were all homogeneous within each pit, indicating 
relatively rapid depositional periods associated with each. 
The circular trash pits ranged in size from 0.51 meter 
(Feature 21) to 1.15 meters (Feature 24) in diameter; five 
were one meter or more in diameter (Features 4,5,9,18,24). 
Depth below the plowzone varied between 0.07 meter (Feature 
20) and 0.56 meter (Feature 5). None of the ten smaller 
features extended more than 0.40 meter below the plowzone. 
It is possible that some of the pits — particularly those 
containing small amounts of trash — were used for purposes 
other than as garbage disposal locations, but evidence of 
multiple use has not been identified. 

Feature 10 is the only trash pit uncovered that is not 
circular or oval in shape. It extended 0.48 meter below the 
plowzone and possessed nearly vertical walls and a slightly 
convex bottom (Figure 6-12). From the extensive amounts and 
types of artifacts associated with it, the feature apparently 
functioned as a trash dump location. However, the distinct 
rectangular shape of this feature indicates a prior function 
as well. No analogous features from Frederica or other 
colonial sites are known to the author, but the shape, size, 



189 

and, as will be shown later, the location of this feature are 
not inconsistent with a storage pit function. 

A distinction is made between the larger (at least one 
meter in diameter) and smaller trash pits at this site. The 
10 smaller features are considered to be "informal" pits that 
were dug quickly and easily for immediate disposal of a 
specific, limited collection of trash. The odorous qualities 
of the horse mandible ( Equus cabellus ) found in Feature 12 
could certainly have provided the impetus needed for digging 
such a feature. Larger amounts of accumulated bone and trash 
would have required larger "formal" trash pits, such as those 
over one meter diameter, that would have involved 
considerably more labor to excavate than the informal pits. 
The formal trash pits are not only larger in diameter than 
the informal pits, they are also deeper, averaging 0.35 meter 
below the plowzone versus 0.30 meter for the smaller pits. 

The most notable characteristic of the trash pits, as 
seen in Figure 6-10, is the large amount of bone that was 
deposited in them (40.0$ of the total feature bone weight), 
relative to other artifacts (22% of total feature artifacts). 
It is clear that the primary function of these pits was to 
contain trash, particularly trash associated with 
disagreeable smells. 

Only Features 4, 5, and 10 contained a sufficient 
quantity of datable ceramics to allow application of the mean 
ceramic date formula. Features 4 and 5, both located on the 
extreme western edge of the excavation, yielded dates of 



190 



1749-3 and 1760, respectively. The late date for Feature 5 
is attributed to the abundance of white salt glazed stoneware 
(114 sherds) in the pit. Feature 10 had a date of 1740.5. 
The significance of these dates will be discussed later in 
this and the next chapter. 

Postholes 

Six trash-filled postholes were designated as features 
(Figure 6-1). They are distinct from non-feature postholes 
only in the amounts of colonial trash contained in the fill 
of each, particularly construction materials. Brick and 
tabby rubble was three times as plentiful (by volume) in the 
feature postholes as in the nonfeature postholes. All the 
feature postholes were found in an area of the site 
containing a heavy concentration of nonfeature postholes that 
are believed to have been asssociated with a colonial 
structure. Figure 6-13 is a composite map showing all 
colonial postholes in which a clustering of postholes south 
of Feature 29 in the northeast area of the site is revealed. 
A rectangular post-supported building, with its northeast 
corner directly adjacent to Feature 10, appears to have been 
present in this area. The dimensions of this building are 
approximately 7.3 meters by 4.6 meters (23.9 by 15.1 feet), 
which corresponds closely to the "at least 20 by 16 feet" 
building dimensions specified by the Trustees (Candler 1904- 
37 :XXXIV, 288) . An additional room is represented by a 
cluster of 12 postholes to the east of the main structure. 











CD 






o 


CD 


w 




o 




0) 


CO 


H 


Xj 


i — 1 


CD 


J3 


O 


O 


t. 




a 


-C 


=3 


>, 




4-3 


4-5 


X) 


Oh 


W 


00 


X2 


O 


o 


CD 


CO 




Cu 




4-> 



o 



193 

Besides the postholes, other direct evidence of a 
building in this area consists of numerous fragments of 
plaster tabby that bear wattle impressions. Except for a 
large block found in Feature 29 (Figure 6-13), this daubed 
plaster tabby was the only kind recovered from the site. 
Unfortunately, quantification of construction materials was 
not carried out in the northeast section of the site. A 
contour map produced from the plowzone samples of brick and 
tabby reflects the presence of construction material that is 
associated with the three wells (Figure 6-14). Most of this 
material is from brick rubble used to fill the well shafts, 
although some brickbats included in the sample were probably 
originally used to brace the barrels near the top of Feature 
1 (see Wells discussion above). Also apparent in this map is 
a moderate amount of construction material extending from the 
wells to the posthole structure which is a result of the 
SYMAP interpolation of values for squares around the 
structure. It should be noted, however, that the 
construction rubble contour map does not reflect the 
extremely heavy concentrations of plaster tabby that were 
observed but not quantified during excavation of the area in 
which the structure is located. It should also be added that 
large fragments of wattle- impressed plaster tabby were 
recovered from subsurface features in this area exclusively. 
The example shown in Figure 6-15 was found in the Feature 25 
posthole that is associated with the structure. 



Figure 6-14. Distribution of Construction Materials, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



195 




d) 
4-3 

•H 

<u 
o 

Q 



Sh 

4-3 

O 

Sh 

oo 
.c 

Q 

T3 
C 

cd 
t— i 

4-3 
4-3 

aj 



O 

Sh 

CD 

4J 

w 

aj 
H 
Cu 

>> 
X) 
X) 

CO 

Eh 



lti 
I 

<D 
■H 



197 




198 



Although not specifically mentioned by Manucy (1960), 

wattle and daub houses are not unknown from early Georgia. 

In his discussion of the basic f reeholder-yoeman house, 

Nichols (1957:27) describes a variation of the wattle-and- 

daub construction method: 

There were some houses ((in Georgia)) which the Mora- 
vians built in their own fashion, like those erected in 
North Carolina and Pennsylvania. These were of hewn 
log uprights with the space between filled in with 
cylinders of clay formed around sticks set horizontally 
As the interces were plastered but not the framing, 
the effect was that of half-timber... The colonists 
were well aware of the distinction between these 
Moravian-style houses and the framed, weather- 
boarded houses of the English. 

Nichols also indicates that wattle-and-daub houses were used 

by non-Moravians in 18th and 19th century Georgia, as his 

discussion of contemporaneous historian George White's 

observations shows: 

Wattle-and-daub was used in these framed houses 
as well as in huts. As late as 1 830 , the home of 
Thomas Bosomworth and his Indian wife Mary Musgrove, 
was still standing on St. Catherine's Island, and 
White describes it as being "wattled with hickory 
twigs, and plastered within and without with mortar, 
made of lime and sand, surrounded with spacious 
piazzas." (1957:27) 

Except for the "spacious piazzas," this description agrees 

remarkably well with the physical evidence of the structure 

found at Lot 31. The presence of the unique rectangular pit 

(Feature 10) directly adjacent to the building is also 

considered to be significant. The unusual shape and the 

location next to the post structure are explicable if the 

storage function suggested earlier for Feature 10 is 

accepted. A pit or root cellar adjacent to the house would 



199 

have been a convenient storage facility if lined with wood 
and secured with a wooden top. A mean ceramic date of 1740.5 
indicates the approximate time that the pit, and indirectly, 
the house, were in use. The mean ceramic date of the 
plowzone ceramics in the vicinity of the house also supports 
this contention (see Chapter VII). 

Miscellaneous Features 

The features included under this category consist of 
three shallow trash-filled depressions and a possible fire 
pit (Figure 6-1). Feature 28 was a small, poorly visible 
disturbance that contained two upright cattle long bones ( Bos 
taurus ) and nothing else. Next to it, and underlying Feature 
29, was the Feature 8 pit. This feature had a circular 
central area containing charcoal and ash. The pit had 
straight sides and a flat bottom, and other than 14 square 
nails and 1.2 grams of bone, no artifacts. Although similar 
in shape to a trash pit, the lack of artifacts and the 
presence of a remnant wood fire in a circular area in the 
center indicate a function for this feature that is distinct 
from that of the trash pits: it was dug to contain a fire. 
Such a pit would most likely have been created for cooking, 
to provide heat, or to provide smoke, but in the absence of 
charred bone, recognizable charcoal or other positive 
evidence of its ultimate use, an informed choice between the 
three alternatives is not possible. None of these 
miscellaneous features contained sufficient ceramic artifacts 
to derive a mean ceramic date. 



200 



Feature 29 Trench 

This feature proved to be the most enigmatic of any 
found by the author at Frederica. It extended east-west 
across 10 of the three-meter excavation units (Figure 6-1) 
and beyond. Profiles on the west wall of Square 4 and the 
east wall of Square 20 indicate that neither end of the 
trench had been excavated. This feature was poorly visible 
in most squares (Figure 6-16), especially in the east end of 
the site where root disturbances from several large live oak 
trees were prevalent. The form of Feature 29, indicated in 
the profile photograph shown in Figure 6-17 and in the 
overhead shot in Figure 6-16 is quite similar to the 
pallisade wall trench excavated by Lewis at Camden (1976:43- 
48, especially Figure 18 and Figure 19). The alignment of 
the trench is slightly askew to the site grid. Large numbers 
of artifacts were found in the trench fill (Figure 6-10), and 
a mean ceramic date of 1742.3 was derived from 368 colonial 
period sherds. This excludes four sherds of creamware or 
later that were recorded for this feature: one creamware, 
two transf erprint pearlware, and one plain pearlware- 
whiteware body sherd. Unfortunately, none of these sherds 
were discovered in. situ and they may be intrusive into the 
top of the feature as a result of the extensive soil-altering 
processes discussed in the last chapter. If the sherds are 
used as a terminus post quern for the construction and filling 
of this feature, then a date of 1795 or later must be 
assumed. Even if these four sherds are considered as 



Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench, 
Dobree Site. 



Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench, 
Dobree Site. 



202 




203 

intrusive, it is suggested that the trench dates after the 
primary occupation of the site, as discussed below. 

Various interpretations as to the function of this 
feature were proposed during the excavation. Eventually this 
30 meter-plus trench was recognized as a pallisade footing 
trench. This interpretation was supported by the presence of 
a line of postholes in the trench that was noted after the 
composite map shown in Figure 6-13 was drawn. However, 
careful inspection of this map reveals that the orientation 
of the trench — as opposed to the postholes in the trench--is 
slighly different. The postholes are oriented to the site 
grid while the trench extends in a line that is approximately 
three degrees south of the east-west grid line. This 
indicates that the trench and the postholes may not be 
directly associated. Further evidence of a lack of direct 
association between the postholes and trench is illustrated 
in Figure 6-18. This profile reveals separate fill 
characteristics in the trench and the posthole underlying the 
trench bottom. Of primary significance is the lens of dark 
humic soil apparent at the bottom of the trench. This thin 
layer is believed to be composed of humic soils from the 
surface that fell into the trench before it was backfilled; 
similar soil is present in the bottom of the posthole. If 
the posthole had been dug at the same time as the trench, a 
slumping of the humus into to posthole would be expected, 
rather than the straight extension shown in the profile. If 
a post had been present in the posthole, the lens extending 







w 

CD 




H 




O 




£3 








w 




o 




Cu 




bO 




c 




■H 




>, 




rH 




Sh 




<D 




T3 




C 




CD 




T3 




C 












CVJ 




<D 




S-i 








4-2 




cC 




CD 










0) 




-P 


O 






oo 


0 




rH 


CD 


■H 


CD 


<4-l 




o 




Sh 


o 





CO 

I 

vO 

•rH 



206 



straight across the trench bottom would again be expected to 
have shown discontinuity at the posthole. What is indicated 
by this profile is that Feature 29 has cut across and was 
therefore constructed after the posthole. The same 
stratigraphic relationship was noted for most of the other 
postholes located in the trench. In addition to the 
postholes, four other features were also cut by this Feature, 
indicating that they were already present when it was dug. 
None of the features or postholes were intrusive into the 
trench. It is therefore suggested that Feature 29 dates 
after the line of postholes and the features shown at the top 
of Figure 6-13- 

Although the line of postholes under Feature 29 predates 
the trench, their depth below the plowzone indicates that 
they probably were associated with an earlier footing trench 
that was destroyed by the later one. This explains the 
presence of a "double bottom" in Feature 29 that was noted in 
some squares during excavation. The heavy amounts of trash 
recovered from this provenience have apparently resulted from 
the redeposition of the material included in the hypothetical 
earlier trench and/or from surface refuse that was included 
in the trench backfill. In either case, the artifacts 
associated with Feature 29 would be expected to reflect the 
effects of redeposition. This assumption is tested by 
comparison of ratios of the "miscellaneous" (i.e. eroded) 
earthenware to nonmiscellaneous ceramics in Feature 29, the 
plowzone, and the other features. Ratios of 0.18, 0.12, and 



207 



0.05 were found, respectively, which is in full accordance 
with the expectation of highly fragmented ceramics in the 
open contexts versus reduced fragmentation in the closed 
context features. 

The presence of the two post pallisades in the same 
location at this site raises numerous questions. Although 
similar in form to the military pallisade wall trenches 
reported by Lewis at Camden (1976) and Manucy at Frederica 
(1962), the possibility exists that Feature 29 may have been 
a domestic pallisade-f ence marking the street and lot 
boundary. Documentary references to the fencing in of 
property at Frederica are not uncommon. Indeed, Elisha 
Dobree's own description of his Frederica homestead includes 
mention of his town lot which "is fenced and has palisades 
and clapboards. .. "(Candler 1 904-37 : XXI , 345 ) . The position of 
the trench agrees fairly closely with the documented position 
of the street-lot boundary: it is approximately 4.5 meters 
farther north than anticipated, as indicated by a comparison 
of maps shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 6-13. Archeological 
data also tends to confirm the presence of a street next to 
the trench. The contour maps already presented for brick and 
ceramic distributions generally show reductions in artifact 
frequencies in the first and second rows of the excavated 
squares . 

Arguing against a domestic interpretation is the extent 
of the trench which greatly exceeds the 60 feet width of 
Frederica's lots, and equally important, the fact that the 



208 

trench has no parallel or right angle counterparts that would 
have marked the bondaries of the other three sides of the 
lot. A military association is therefore suspected for this 
feature. 

Sporadic attempts at repair and reoccupation of 
Frederica by British, and later Federal, troops are 
documented (Candler 1 904-37 : X , 5 1 5 , XIV, 413; Jones 1878:126- 
136), and it is suggested that the presence of Feature 29 at 
the site is attributable to an undocumented attempt to 
refurbish the town's defenses through construction of a 
pallisade within the old town walls. The location of this 
pallisade along the edge of a former street would have 
provided a cleared area, immediately inside and adjacent to 
the pallisade walls, which would have facilitated 
unobstructed movement of personnel along the edge of the 
pallisaded area. 

Another indication of the association between the 
Feature 29 artifacts and the plowzone material is seen in the 
mean ceramic date calculated for the plowzone, feature and 
Feature 29 ceramics. The date for the trench would be 
expected to reflect the date calculated for the plowzone if 
ceramics were discarded at about the same time for both. 
Expressed another way, if temporal differences in the 
plowzone deposition and deposition in the features exist, the 
trench should be more closely associated with the plowzone 
dates. This is born out by the following dates calculated 
for the precreamware ceramics: 



209 



Plowzone: 1743. 4 

Feature 29: 1742.3 

All other features: 1749.3 
That temporal distinctions exist between the features and the 
plowzone is clearly apparent, as is the essential 
correspondance between the plowzone and feature ceramics' 
temporal characteristics. 

Using the information presented in Tables 5-1 and 6-1, 
it is also possible to test the plowzone, features, and 
trench artifact associations by constructing bone-artifact 
ratios. Following the reasoning above, these ratios should 
be more similar for the trench and plowzone that for any 
other combination. Using bone weight rather that 
frequencies, the following ratios were found: 

Plowzone: 0.39 

Feature 29: 0.66 

All other features: 2.65 
These results again illustrate the systematic relationship 
that exists between the plowzone, trench, and features at the 
Dobree site. 

Through several lines of evidence it has been possible 
to demonstrate similarity between the artifact assemblages 
recovered from the plowzone and the pallisade wall trench and 
to contrast the characteristics of these assemblages with 
those of the features. These similarities and differences 
reflect the depositional processes associated with each type 
of provenience. 



210 



In summary, Feature 29 is believed to be a military 
pallisade wall trench that was constructed after the primary 
occupation of the site. Strat igraphic evidence was found 
indicating that this feature was located directly over an 
earlier trench and post line that conformed more closely to 
the town's alignment that did the later trench. Artifacts 
associated with the trench fill were found to possess 
temporal and physical relationships similar to the plowzone 
artifact assemblage. Redeposition in Feature 29 of (1) the 
assemblage from the earlier trench, (2) the plowzone 
artifacts, or (3) a combination of both accounts for the 
similarities between this feature and the plowzone materials. 
From documentary and archeological evidence the trench 
appears to have been located on the south edge of a road that 
was in use during the colonial occupation at Frederica. 

Hird Site Features 
A total of 10 major features was uncovered at the Hird 
Site, as shown in Figure 6-19. Detailed descriptions of each 
are presented in the Hird Lot Site report (Honerkamp 1975:74- 
87). They are renumbered in the present study. All of the 
ceramic artifacts found in the features possess beginning 
manufacturing dates that antedate creamware and no "out of 
place" artifacts, such as wire nails or molded glass, were 
associated with the closed contexts. Mean ceramic dates for 
features containing sufficient numbers of identifiable sherds 
were all within the mean occupation range at Frederica; a 



211 



mean ceramic date of 1738.9 was calculated for the combined 
feature ceramics. 

The variety of features found at this site, and the 
extensive artifact and bone assemblages associated with them, 
are believed to constitute an adequate sample of the colonial 
occupation for comparison with the Dobree Site. The features 
consist of four trash pits, a small dog burial, two privy- 
pits, an unused well or privy construction pit, a storage 
pit, and a possible root cellar. Figure 6-19 illustrates the 
clustering of features in the approximate center of the site. 
Notable for its large size is the central Feature 3 trash 
pit, which contained 70% of the bone and 62% of the artifacts 
found in all the features. This shallow pit (0.23 meter 
below the plow zone) was dug at an earlier date than Features 
5 through 7, all of which cut into the trash pit. The dog 
burial predates Feature 3. 

The double barrel storage pit (Feature 9) is unique at 
Frederica and at other contemporaneous British sites. The 
shallow bottom of this pit, at 0.84 meter below the plow 
zone, precludes its use as a well. However, the bottoms of 
the barrels were apparently placed in water as indicated by a 
0.06 meter layer of water sorted sand. It therefore has been 
interpreted as being a storage pit that was later filled with 
trash . 

Feature 10 is a straight sided, flat bottomed pit that 
contained several decomposed timber beams on the bottom and 
two fragments of plaster tabby with wood lath impressions 



Figure 6-19. Composite Map of Hird Site Features. 



Features Description 

1 Trash pit 

2 Trash pit 

3 Trash pit 

4 Dog burial 

5 Privy pit 

6 Unused construction pit for well/privy 

7 Privy pit 

8 Trash pit 

9 Barrel storage pit 
10 Possible root cellar 



213 





214 



parallel to the south edge at the top. It extended 0.76 
meter below the plow zone. The presence of wood framing was 
probably an attempt to keep the pit dry. The large size of 
this feature and its location at the south end of the lot 
indicate its association with a structure of some kind. It 
is interpreted as a root cellar that was probably part of a 
dwelling structure at the site. 

Hawkins-Davison Site Features 
The excavation of this site is reported by Fairbanks 
(1952, 1956) and Deagan (1972). The primary features 
uncovered consist of the entire house foundations and six 
associated closed context wells, four of which were excavated 
in whole or in part. At least 5 separate rooms, representing 
various stages in the development and construction of the 
Hawkins-Davison duplex, were identified. Fairbanks also 
located evidence of the lot boundaries at the site. The 
large size of the excavated area and the multiple features 
uncovered are believed to compose a representative sample of 
the artifacts and bone deposited during the Hawkins-Davison 
occupation . 

Summary 

This chapter has reviewed the sample frame used in this 
study in terms of form and content of the sites investigated. 
The three artifact assemblages recovered from the sample 
frame are considered to be comparable for the following 
reasons : 



215 

1) The samples are large; 

2) The samples are diverse; i.e. the "single feature 
bias" has been eliminated through excavation of 
numerous features at each site; 

3) Closed context features contributed significant 
amounts of the artifacts and bone from each sample. 

Using the data base reviewed above, it is now possible to 
investigate questions relating to the frontier adaptation at 
Frederica . 



CHAPTER VII 
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 



This chapter presents hypotheses dealing with aspects of 
the British colonial adaptation to the natural and social 
environments at Frederica. Both artifactual and faunal 
evidence will be examined with reference to the hypotheses 
and associated test implications. Lewis' frontier model is 
seen as a conceptual framework that can be used to show the 
relationships that exist between elements of the hypotheses. 
As a simplified analogue of reality, the frontier model 
cannot be tested in a formal sense. However, the 
applicability and usefulness of the model for interpreting 
frontier sites can be demonstrated through the use of the 
model in an explanatory capacity at sites such as Frederica. 
Although Frederica is not completely comparable with Camden 
due to social, demographic, political, and economic 
differences, these differences can be taken into account when 
applying the model. 

From the information presented in the last two chapters 
it is possible to address several general questions 
concerning the cultural, temporal, formal, and functional 
parameters of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree Sites. 
The cultural affiliation of the sites is the first question 
to be addressed. 

216 



217 

Cultural Affiliation 

From the historical background reviewed in Chapter IV it 
can logically be assumed that Frederica participated fully in 
the world-wide economic system developed by Britain in the 
18th century. In order to test this assumption through 
reference to archeological data, it is necessary to examine 
archeological materials that would reflect the economic ties 
between Frederica and the mother country. Miller and Stone 
have characterized ceramic artifacts as being "particularly 
sensitive" indicators of economic-transportation linkages, 
and by extension, cultural affiliation (1970:98-99). 
Extensive ceramic assemblages recovered from the three sites 
investigated are useful in determining the cultural 
affiliation of the sites. 

As with Lewis' Camden study (1977), documentary sources 
have identified the colonizing society at Frederica as being 
primarily British. However, the sample frame in the present 
study is not the town as a whole but rather three sites that 
are assumed to correspond to three domestic British 
components of the military-civilian settlement. In an effort 
to control the ethnicity variable (which is essential if 
other hypotheses are to be adequately tested), it is 
necessary to substantiate the proposed British affiliation of 
the three sites. This can be accomplished through testing 
three interlocking hypotheses dealing with the ceramic 
assemblages associated with each site. Following the 
propositions made by Lewis (1977:68), they are: 



218 



1) As components of a British colonial frontier town, 
the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites should 
be characterized by a predominance of ceramics manu- 
factured in the country of origin or its colonial 
possessions . 

2) Reliance on the British ceramic industry and on 
British trade and transportation networks would be 
reflected not only in ceramic frequencies but also 
in the number of ceramic types recovered from all 
three sites. In view of the overwhelmingly dominant 
position of the British ceramic industry during the 
18th century, it is expected that the variety 

of British ceramic types present at the Frederica 
sites would mirror the diversity of types found at 
other British sites. 

3) The occurence of re-exported ceramic types at British 
colonial sites is a reflection of the commercial 
trade and transportation networks developed by the 
mother country in the 18th century. Lewis has indi- 
cated that the percentage occurance of re-exported 
foreign-made ceramics at British sites in North Amer- 
ica falls within predictable ranges (1976:79, 
1977:168). The two most commonly exported wares, 
Westerwald stoneware and oriental porcelain, should 
therefore fall within the predicted ranges (1 to 5% 
and 7 to 30/6, respectively) for the three sites at 
Frederica . 



The ceramic data presented in Table 5-2 can be used to 
substantiate the proposed British affiliation of the three 
sites. Of the precreamware types present at the sites, 
British ceramics account for the vast majority: 93.1% 
(Hird), 89% (Hawkins-Davison), and 87.4% (Dobree). The 
presence of 9 ceramic fragments representing Britains's two 
main competing European powers out of a total of 18,438 
sherds recovered certainly does not indicate any significant 
trade networks or the presence of a Spanish or French 
occupation at Frederica. 

A total of 22 colonial period types of British-made 
ceramics were identified for the three sites, substantially 



219 



less than the 32 types mentioned by Lewis for Camden 
(1977:168). However, the sample used for Frederica does not 
include creamware or later types, as the Camden sample does. 
Ivor Noel Hume (1974), James Deetz (1977), and others have 
described the florescence in the English pottery industry 
that took place in the 1760s. Considerable numbers of types 
and quantities of mass-produced ceramics became widely 
available at a lower cost than previously. The contrast 
between Camden and Frederica reflects the temporal 
differences between the two settlements in terms of the 
development of the British ceramic industry. 

Re-exported ceramics are present at all three sites, as 
represented by 1607 Oriental porcelain fragments and 417 
fragments of Rhenish stoneware. For the sites as a whole, 
this accounts for 8.7* and 2.3* respectively. Both 
percentages fall within the ranges suggested by Lewis, which 
is seen as supporting the third hypothesis. However, there 
is considerable diversity between sites in the percentages of 
these wares: 



Oriental Porcelain Rhenish Stoneware 



Hird 



5.5% 



1.4* 



Hawkins-Davison 



4.5* 



6.1* 



Dobree 



10.5* 



2.1* 



As Deetz has pointed out, the presence of artifacts at a site 
is dependent upon four factors: availability, need, function 



220 

and social status (1977:50-61). Any or all of these factors 
may be responsible for intersite differences in artifacts. 
It is suggested that the availability factor is primarily 
responsible for the contrasts in ceramics noted above. 
Hypotheses relating to this question are tested in a later 
section . 

Temporal Parameters 

The second general question refers to the chronological 
position of the three sites. Although the documented 
terminus post quern for the entire town has been established 
as 1736, occupation end dates varied from site to site. Most 
sites at Frederica are believed to have been occupied from 
1736 until the middle to late 1740s, while a small number 
were inhabited past 1750. The documented mean occupation 
date for the settlement is set at 1742 (see Chapter IV). 

Analysis of temporally sensitive ceramic and pipe 
artifacts is useful in determining the temporal parameters of 
the sites in question. Post-1760 deposition of ceramic 
artifacts at the Hawkins-Davison site is indicated by the 303 
sherds recovered that have beginning manufacturing dates of 
1762 (creamware) or later. This accounts for 15.5$ of the 
total ceramic assemblage from this site, whereas the Hird and 
Dobree sites contained only 1.0$ and 2.3$. Since the 
Hawkins-Davison site is known to have contained a substantial 
brick house, reoccupation of this site after the primary 
inhabitants had left would not be surprising. However, the 
reoccupation that may have taken place at this site was 



221 

apparently not of substantial duration or intensity and at 
least some of the biases that it would have introduced into 
the limited sample can be identified and controlled. 

A more accurate estimate of the mean date of occupation 
of British colonial sites can be attained using South's 
formula. Mean ceramic dates of 1738.8 for the Hird Site and 
1743.8 for the Dobree Site were found using the total 
precreamware assemblages from each site (2648 and 6635 
sherds, respectively). These dates fall within the 
documented colonial occupation span for Frederica and both 
are close to the median historic date of 1742. These dates 
also agree with the temporal characteristics associated with 
the identified nonceramic artifacts discussed in Chapter V. 

Contrasting dates are derived from the tobacco pipe 
data. Using the Binford (1962) and the Heighton-Deagan 
formulae, the following dates were calculated from the 
pipestem fragments: 

Hird Site Dobree Site 

Binford formula 1741.7 1766.0 

Heighton-Deagan formula 1743.8 1768.3 

Samples: 4/64 164 2517 

5/64 947 1159 

6/64 38 42 

The pipestem dates for the Hird Site are still within the 

documented occupation ranges for Frederica and the site. The 

slightly later dates, as compared with the mean ceramic date, 

probably result from the differences in ability of the author 

to control the ceramic but not the pipestem samples: 



222 



noncolonial ceramics were readily identified and excluded 
from the mean ceramic date calculations but corresponding 
"late" pipestems that were deposited at the site after the 
Hird occupation could not be identified and removed. It 
should be noted, however, that the pipestem dates are closer 
to the documented occupation midpoint (late 1741-early 1742) 
than the mean ceramic date. This suggests an alternative 
interpretation for the ceramic and pipestem data. The 
earlier ceramic date may be attributed to factors at the site 
that resulted in a higher rate of ceramic use and subseqent 
discard during the first half of the occupation. The most 
important factor in the generation of domestic refuse would 
be occupation density. Documentary evidence reviewed for the 
Hird Site indicates that at least five persons were living at 
Lot 12-North during the initial occupation of the site. It 
is unlikely that the family unit remained stable over the 
entire occupation of the site. One of Hird's daughters is 
reported to have married and presumably left the Hird 
household after she arrived in Georgia, and Thomas Hird is 
known to have developed another homestead sometime after 17^3 
on an island between Savannah and Frederica. Eleven years 
after his death, Hird's "plantation" was still substantial 
enough to be the object of a petition by his daughter and 
son-in-law (Candler 1 904-37 : VI II , 202 ) . Thus, factors are 
present in the early part of the Hird occupation that would 
have produced a higher rate of transformation of artifacts 
from systemic contexts to archeological contexts (Schiffer 



223 

1977:15-18) relative to the late occupation period. This 
interpretation obviously hinges upon a crucial factor: that 
the site excavated was actually occupied by Hird. Evidence 
used in identifying Lot 12 North with the Hird occupation is 
presented below. 

Much later pipestem dates have been generated for the 
Dobree Site. The discrepancy between the ceramic and pipe 
dates can be attributed to (1) a breakdown of the pipestem 
formula's production of reliable estimates, and (2) 
deposition of "late" pipestems without corresponding 
deposition of significant numbers of late ceramics. Although 
the HeightonDeagan and Binford formulae are known to break 
down during the last three decades of the 18th century, 
comparison of ceramic and pipe dates derived from 
contemporaneous sites indicates that pipestem dating is an 
appropriate method for determining occupation estimates for 
sites earlier than 1770. The alternative arguement for the 
presence of a higher proportion of "late" pipestems without a 
corresponding percentage of postcreamware ceramic types seems 
more plausible. This apparent discrepancy in pipe and 
ceramic deposition indicates that the Dobree Site possessed 
multiple occupations: one or more early occupations in which 
ceramics and pipestems were deposited together (i.e., in the 
features) and at least one late occupation in which only 
pipestems were deposited. However, evidence from the closed 
context features suggests another explanation. It can 
logically be expected that the dates derived for ceramics and 



224 



are recovered from the same features will exhibit similar 
temporal ranges. Excluding Feature 29, a mean ceramic date 
of 1749.3 was found for the features, while the pipestem 
dates were 1765.8 (Binford) and 1768.1 ( Heighton-Deagan) . 
These results indicate that the pipestems used at the Dobree 
Site in the late 1740s possessed a range of bore diameters 
that does not correspond to an appropriate normal frequency 
distribution as predicted by the Binford and Heighton-Deagan 
formulae. It is suggested that the reasons accounting for 
the small bore bias are related to the specific 
characteristics of the economic-communication-transportation 
networks present in colonial Georgia during the latter 1740s. 
These characteristics are thought to contrast sharply with 
those associated with the logistics system established during 
Frederica's earlier years. This point will be developed more 
fully later. Other town sites with late occupations are 
expected to share similar ceramic-pipestem temporal 
relationships to those found at the Dobree Site. These late 
sites should contrast with other earlier sites in terms of 
differences between the ceramic and pipe dates if the model 
proposed here is accurate. 

The pipestem data from the Hawkins-Davison Site (Deagan 
1972:54) was used by the present author to derive dates of 
1744.1 (Heighton-Deagan) and 1742.1 (Binford). Both dates 
are after the initial occupation of the house but are still 
within the documented range for Frederica. These late dates 



225 



are attributed to the reoeeupation of the site that was 
proposed above. 

The foregoing discussion substantiates archeologically 
the temporal parameters for the town and the sites that were 
derived from the documentary record. In addition, by 
examining chronologically sensitive artifacts, it has been 
possible to address questions concerning the structure of the 
archeological record and its relationship to some of the 
local and possibly regional factors that affect it. 

Site Form and Function 
Questions concerning variation in the form and function 
of the sites at Frederica are addressed next. As Lewis 
points out, form is closely associated with function. For 
instance 

. . . Camden would have occupied a status comparable 
in many ways to certain other types of urban settle- 
ments in early industrial Europe. Its location on the 
periphery of the European world system, however, would 
have caused it to assume characteristics unlike those 
of settlements in the metropolitan area. Its role as a 
frontier town would require it to maintain certain func- 
tions while adapting to frontier conditions by restrict- 
ing its socially integrating institutions and, con- 
sequently aspects of its form as well. (Lewis 1977:171) 

It is possible to contrast the formal-functional 
characteristics attributed to Frederica with those of Camden 
and European settlements. Instead of developing as a high- 
density population center that assumed successive urban 
functions, as would an English market town, Camden was 
established primarily "to coordinate social, economic, and 
political activities" (Lewis 1977:172). These differences 



226 

would be reflected differentially in the spatial arrangements 
of each. Camden would be expected to have a less compact 
settlement pattern than its urban English complement as a 
result of a combination of abundant land, a relatively low- 
density supporting population, and the absence of a need for 
concerted defense or cooperative subsistence ventures. 
Although meeting the definition of a frontier town, due to 
political factors Frederica would be expected to mirror the 
form of a European town more closely than a dispersed 
frontier town. Because Frederica's intended purpose was as 
the "first line of defense" from a competing state-level 
power, adaptive pressures would result in a more concentrated 
settlement pattern than Camden's. A relatively high, if 
fluctuating, population density as compared with Camden's 
would also tend to produce a settlement similar to a 
concentrated European town. 

A second hypothesis concerns settlement patterning at 
the lot rather than town level. As components of a larger 
entity, the town lots should reflect the formal 
characteristics that are discernible for the town as a whole. 
The reasoning behind this assumption is that the same 
demographic and political pressures that affected the town 
settlement pattern would also have affected the structure of 
the individual units within the town. In other words, the 
compact, clustered settlement pattern of the town should be 
manifest on the most basic unit of space, that of the 
freeholder lot. The patterning of features within each lot 



227 

should therefore be more clustered at Frederica than at the 
nondefensive frontier town of Camden. 

The function of the frontier town of Frederica involves 
additional testable hypotheses. Another unique 
characteristic of this settlement is that it was a planned 
community — or as planned as any frontier town in 18th century 
Georgia could be. In an effort to induce a measure of self- 
sufficiency, the Trustees endeavored to include as many 
different craftsmen as possible in the town's roster. 
Whereas sites at a metropolitan town should reflect primarily 
domestic functions, the components at a frontier site would 
be more likely to reflect domestic and craft, marketing, 
small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing activities. 
As with Camden, structures used only as dwellings probably 
were in the minority at Frederica. In view of the emphasis 
that was placed on crafts and trades at Frederica as opposed 
to Camden, the "centralizing functions" (Lewis 1977:173) of 
the former should be much more in evidence than for the 
latter . 

F rederica Settlement Patterning 

Although the present study has been oriented toward the 
component level of the town rather than the town as a whole, 
it is possible to address the first hypothesis through 
reference to documentary evidence and previous archeological 
research. This hypothesis predicts a concentrated settlement 
pattern at Frederica similar to the "row pattern" in English 
towns, consisting of long, narrow lots in a contiguous, 



228 



evenly spaced arrangement. The outer boundaries of the town 
are readily discernable as the ditch and pallisaded walls 
surrounding the town lots. Contemporaneous maps, including 
the Miller Map shown in Figure 4-1, illustrate a close, 
nonrandom arrangement of long, narrow lots. Archeological 
excavation carried out on both sides of Broad Street (Shiner 
1958a) confirms the row pattern. The 84 contiguous lots 
located within the defensive walls of the town are in a much 
more compact arrangement than the uneven dispersal of 
structures and associated toft areas at Camden. 
Additionally, lot and house locations in the British colonial 
town of Brunswick, North Carolina, are clearly more dispersed 
and uneven that at Frederica (South 1 977a : 46 , 49 ) . Thus the 
formal town structure at Frederica is seen as conforming to a 
pattern that is characteristic of a contemporaneous English 
settlement rather than a colonial frontier town. The need 
for a consolidated defense against a competing state power is 
the primary factor responsible for the occurance of this 
pattern at Frederica. 

Structure of Lot Elements 

The second hypothesis predicts that the sociopolitical 

and demographic factors affecting the structural arrangement 

of the town as a whole should have similar effects at the lot 

level. Several test implications can be derived from this 

hypothesis, as follows: 

1 ) There should be evidence of clustering of features 
within lots, reflecting the localized, concentrated 
use of highly circumscribed town lots. Intersite 



229 



differences in the degree to which the features are 
clustered will be related to the intensity of occupa- 
tion at each site. 

2) Since trash disposal would be limited primarily to 
each occupant's lot due to the town's compact settle- 
ment pattern, there should be evidence of maximiza- 
tion of the trash disposal potential of each lot. 
Most subsurface features would eventually have been 
filled with secondary trash regardless of the initial 
function of the feature. 

3) Intrasite disposal of organic remains, particularly 
of bones capable of generating objectionable odors, 
will be oriented toward subsurface features. 

More bone is expected to be deposited in features 
than on the surface of the lot. Conversely, arti- 
facts lacking odiferous qualities would be deposited 
in a more casual manner at the lot. Higher artifact 
frequencies are therefore expected on the surface 
of a lot than in the features. 

4) The concentrated settlement pattern and contiguous 
arrangement of the town lots would have necessitated 
careful demarkation of lot boundaries. Evidence of 
this presumed emphasis on the delineation and main- 
tenance of lot perimeters should be archeologically 
discernable . 

Clustering of features within the two lots sampled by 
the author is illustrated in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-13. At 
the Hird site the middle of the presumed lot consists of a 
series of trash pits, privies, and other pits that are 
intrusive into one another. At the Dobree Site, the 
arrangement of pits and well features is much more dispersed; 
the only intrusive features are the pallisade wall trench, 
which is believed to have been constructed after the main 
occupation, and a posthole (Feature 27) located in a large 
circular pit that contained few artifacts (Feature 24). The 
differences apparent in the locations of features at these 
sites is believed to be related to the intensity and duration 
of occupation at each. At the Dobree Site, evidence derived 



230 

from chronologically sensitive artifacts indicates highly- 
variable dates for plowzone versus feature deposition: 
1743.4 and 1749.3, respectively (exclusive of Feature 29). 
The late dates generated for the pipestem material 
underscores the temporal variability associated with this 
site. The contrast in dates for the open and closed 
proveniences at the Dobree Site indicates a multi-occupation 
sequence. At the Hird Site there was close agreement between 
the plowzone mean ceramic date (1738.8) and the closed 
context date (1738.9). In addition, the pipestem dates were 
much closer to the ceramic dates than was the case at the 
Dobree Site. The differences observed between the temporal 
characteristics of the two sites are believed to be related 
to the distinct occupation sequences at each site. The 
Dobree Site data are consistent with a multiple occupation 
sequence while the Hird temporal evidence indicates a single 
occupation . 

The intensity of occupation at each site can also be 
archeologically gauged for comparative purposes. At the Hird 
Site, which is expected to have been more intensively 
occupied than the Dobree Site, an index of the occupation 
intensity was found by dividing the total number of 
classified artifacts by the total number of square meters 
excavated. As expected, the resulting figure of 122.4 
artifacts/square meter is higher than the Dobree Site figure 
of 92.8 artifacts/square meter. For faunal materials the 
contrast in indices is even greater. Expressed in grams, the 



231 



amount of bone is 337.6 grams/square meter for the Hird Site 
versus 92.8 grams/square meter for the Dobree Site. 
(Occupation indices for the Hawkins-Davison Site were not 
derived since Fairbanks was not able to completely excavate 
all the wells he encountered (1956:216).) It is proposed that 
the differences in occupation intensity that are demonstrated 
by these indices are directly related to the differences in 
the degree of clustering of features that is present at both 
sites . 

The test implication concerning maximization of the 
trash disposal potential at each site refers to the secondary 
use of subsurface features such as wells, privies, and 
storage pits as trash containers. Features that were 
originally constructed for purposes other than holding trash 
but that were later used for that purpose have been 
identified at both sites. At the Dobree Site special 
function features that were not defined as trash pits include 
the three wells (Features 1, 2, and 3), a storage pit 
(Feature 10), a fire pit (Feature 8), a pallisade wall trench 
(Feature 29), and six postholes (Features 15, 23, 25, 26, and 
27). As was indicated in the last two chapters (see 
especially Figure 6-10), all of these features, with the 
exception of Feature 8, contained heavy concentrations of 
secondary trash. At the Hird Site two privies (Features 5 
and 7), a storage pit (Feature 9), and a root cellar (Feature 
10) are all considered to have originally functioned as 
special purpose features that were eventually converted to 



232 

trash containers. Of all 10 features defined for the site, 
only Feature 6 (an unused well or privy pit) and Feature 4 (a 
dog burial) were not utilized for trash disposal. At both 
sites a strong behavioral tendency toward "recycling" subsur- 
face features seems to be present, including those features 
which would have presented little danger to people or live- 
stock. This indicates an actual need for subsurface trash 
elimination that was a consequence of the concentrated row 
pattern of town lots. A contributing factor in the reuse of 
colonial features is discussed next. 

The third implication can be addressed through compar- 
ison of percentages of total site bone and artifacts for the 
closed context features and the plowzone. The expectation of 
greater deposition of bone in the features is met at both 
sites as seen in the following table. 



Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Materials, 
Hird and Dobree Sites. 



Provenience 



Site 



Hird Bone (grams) 



Hird Artifacts 



Dobree Bone (grams) 



Dobree Artifacts 



Plowzone 

16136. 1 
(42.9*) 

10588 
(77.6%) 

13863.3 
(46.4%) 

35173 
(81.5%) 



Features 

21514.5 
(57.1%) 

3059 
(22.4%) 

15982.5 
(53.6%) 

7969 
(18.5%) 



233 

The artifact totals for both sites are exclusive of the 
Ethnobotanical class in this table. The higher percentages 
of bone weight in the features indicate a tendency to dispose 
of bone in a subsurface context. Nonfaunal trash, which 
would possess less of the objectionable olfactory qualities 
associated with food bone, was more likely to be thrown away 
without recourse to burying. 

The most obvious alternative explanation for the 
observed bone percentage differences between the plowzone and 
features would be differential preservation, particularly as 
a result of variations in soil pH levels. Soil samples taken 
at the Dobree Site and analyzed by the University of Florida 
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Soil Sciences 
Laboratory, indicate that soil acidity was consistent 
throughout the site regardless of provenience. Table 7-2 
contains the pH values for 23 samples from 8 separate 
features, 5 plowzone samples, and 11 samples from Zone 2. 
Even when four "wet" samples are excluded, the mean pH values 
are 7.2 for the features, 7.4 for the plowzone, and 7.2 for 
the sterile B horizon (Zone 2). Twelve samples from the Hird 
features and 19 from the plowzone, analyzed by the same 
laboratory in 1975, ranged from 7.8 to 8.5. According to 
Heizer and Graham (1967:126), soils with a pH level below 7.0 
are acid and below the 6.3 level there is no preservation of 
bone material. Soil acidity is therefore not considered to 
have been a significant factor in promoting differential bone 
preservation on either an intersite or intrasite level. 



Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site. 



Provenience 

Feature 1 
Feature 1 
Feature 1 
Feature 1 
Feature 1 
Feature 2 
Feature 2 
Feature 3 a 
Feature 3 
Feature 3 
Feature 3 
Feature 4 
Feature 5 
Feature 5 
Feature 5 
Feature 5 
Feature 8 
Feature 19 
Feature 29 
Feature 29 
Feature 29 
Feature 29 
Feature 29 
Plowzone 
Plowzone 

Root Disturbance 
Root Disturbance 
Root Disturbance 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 
Zone 2 Sterile 



Square # pH 

31 7.1 

31 7.1 

31 6.9 

31 7.1 

31 6.3 

30 7.5 

30 7.8 

30 7.2 
50 7.3 
50 6.8 
50 6.8 
11 7.4 
29 7.1 
29 7.1 
29 7.1 
29 7.1 
11 7.5 
16 7.6 

16 6.8 

17 7.3 
17 7.2 

6 6.9 

19 6.6 

6 7.1 

19 6.1 

(Plowzone) 34 8.0 

(Plowzone) 34 8.0 

(Plowzone) 24 7.8 

34 8.0 

36 7.1 

16 7.7 

17 7.4 
17 7.4 
17 7.2 

31 6.6 
29 6.8 

6 7.3 

19 6.6 



Sample taken below ground water level. 



235 

Physical degradation of bone may also account for the 
differences in bone quantity noted for the plowed and 
nonplowed proveniences but this proposition is difficult to 
test without resorting to a long-term experimental archeology 
research program. A more immediate and practical test of 
hypotheses concerning differential preservation and bone 
disposal practices would be to compare the results reported 
here with those from undisturbed contemporary English or 
British colonial sites possessing similar spatial constraints 
(i.e., narrow contiguous lots). It is predicted that in the 
absence of such constraints, the need to maximize the 
disposal potential of a limited area will be reduced. This 
will result in fewer trash pits dug and relatively less bone 
deposited in them as other, more informal methods of disposal 
are used. It eventually should be possible to define the 
parameters of "garbage formation processes" at archeological 
sites in such a way as to be able to make predictive 
statements concerning adaptive human behavior in waste 
elimination. Insights into this topic have already been 
demonstrated to have practical implictions for modern 
industrial societies (Rathje 1977, 1979), and a cross- 
cultural research methodology for addressing questions of 
this nature has recently been proposed (McNett 1979). 

The fourth implication concerns the demarcation of lot 
boundaries in the colonial town. The presumed emphasis on 
definition of areal holdings would be a result of a situation 
in which a dense population was present in a confined, 



236 

strictly limited area. The delineation of lot and street 
boundaries was of high research priority during the Dobree 
Project and accounts in part for the extensive area excavated 
at Lot 31 South. 

Documentary references to fences at Frederica are fairly 
common, prompting Manucy (1960) to include fences at almost 
every lot in his reconstructed town model. Firm 
archeological evidence of lot demarcation was uncovered by 
Fairbanks (1956) at Lots 1 and 2 South. On the west side of 
the Hawkins lot he found a line of root disturbances which 
were interpreted as marking the location of a hedge of 
pomegranates that was mentioned in a contemporary account of 
the site (Candler 1 904-37 : XXII , Part 11,453). Test trenches 
also located incomplete sections of a row of postholes on the 
west and south edge of the Davison lot; a possible posthole 
line noted on the east side was disturbed by a series of 
wells and trash pits. The intrusive nature of these features 
over the postholes suggests that the importance of fences 
(and lot boundaries) changed though time at Frederica. On 
the north end of the site was a narrow ditch running parallel 
to Broad Street that was "clearly some sort of front fence" 
(Fairbanks 1956:223). Other fences, or possible fences, were 
located archeologically during the Broad Street excavations, 
including a brick wall on the boundary of Lot 3 South (Shiner 
1958) . 

No evidence of a fence line was uncovered at the Hird 
Site. The relatively small amount of area opened during the 



237 

excavation, the absence of a fence line, the destruction of 
evidence indicating lot boundaries, or some combination of 
factors may account for the lack of locational results at 
this site. At the Dobree Site there was evidence of a 
postcolonial pallisade fence on the north end of the site 
which was intrusive over an earlier post line oriented to the 
colonial town grid. This earlier posthole line may be 
associated with the colonial occupation at Frederica, 
although this can not be conclusively demonstrated with 
archeological materials. The location of this suspected 
fence line on what is thought to be the street end of a lot 
and its alignment with the colonial grid support the 
contention that the earlier post line was a sort of fence, or 
possibly two fences, that fronted Lot 30 and Lot 31. 
Evidence of a south, east, or west fence was not found 
despite the large area opened up at this site. 

Since the postholes were encountered in seven of the 
excavation units, they extend over 60 feet and must therefore 
represent two separate fences or a single fence encompassing 
all of one lot and at least part of another. Elisha Dobree 
was known to have attempted to "unite lots" at Savannah 
(Candler 1 904-37 : XXIV , 1 33 ) and the fence line encountered at 
Lot 31 South may be an example of a similar attempt, by 
Dobree or some other colonist, at Frederica. 

Based on an admittedly limited sample, the documented 
use of fences to set off property boundaries during the 
colonial period has been established archeologically . 



238 

However, differences probably exist concerning the type and 
extent of fences used by Frederica's inhabitants. It is 
likely that the presence or absence of fences is correlated 
with socioeconomic status (as is the case with architecture 
and wells), intensity of settlement in different Ward areas 
(i.e., Broad Street lots versus the outer row lots), or 
temporal aspects of settlement patterning (change through 
time in occupation density at the site). It is also possible 
that fences played an important technological role at 
Frederica (Leone 1973; Reps 1969). Although the presence of 
fences at the town has been demonstrated, much future 
research will be needed before a clear picture can be gained 
of where and under what conditions they occur. 

Site Function 

The question of site function can be expressed in terms 
of the presence of domestic or nondomestic activity by- 
products at each site. In view of the documented background 
on the bulk of Frederica's inhabitants, it is expected that 
most sites will reflect the presence of combined domestic and 
craft activities. As at Camden, structures used only as 
dwellings should be rare at Frederica. 

One way in which aspects of site function can be 
determined is through quantification and comparison of 
artifact classes and groups. By summarizing the artifact 
group information given in the last two chapters it is 
possible to construct "empirical artifact profiles" which can 
be used for intersite comparisons. Differences and 



239 

similarities between the group percentages in the two 
profiles, and the extent to which they conform to a "model" 
profile proposed by South (1977a) will be examined in an 
effort to establish the overall functions of each site. 

According to South, the Carolina Artifact Pattern is a 
measure of the uniformity of the archeological record as it 
reflects a British cultural system in colonial America. It 
is assumed that material by-products of a "basic set of 
behavioral modes, attitudes, and associated artifacts" will 
be consistently revealed in the frequency relationships 
between artifact groups recovered at British colonial sites 
(South 1977a:86). The ranges suggested by South are 
considered to be a baseline from which unique, unusual, or 
specific behavior can be distinguished: specialized 
behavioral activities will be revealed as deviations from the 
"normal" variation represented by the group range. Of 
crucial importance in constructing the artifact profiles is 
the complete quantification of the artifact assemblages in a 
format that is comparable with other sites and in a manner 
that is replicable by other archeologists . This accounts for 
the emphasis that has been given to artifact analysis in the 
present study. 

All eight of the artifact groups used in constructing 
the profiles contain artifact classes that are associated 
with domestic activities. However, it is the Kitchen, 
Furniture, Clothing, and Personal groups that would be the 
most functionally integrated at domestic sites since they 



240 

represent the material by-products of basic domestic 
activities. These include subsistence items used in the 
storage, preparation, and consumption of food (Kitchen 
group), the use or repair of clothing (Clothing group), the 
use of domestic furniture items (Furniture group), and the 
use of personal belongings (Personal group). Arms might be 
expected to vary according to the degree to which defense 
against competing state-level societies was integrated into 
civilian life during the colonial period, especially at 
Frederica where civilians formed part of standing militia 
during 1736 to 1745. The Tobacco Pipe group is characterized 
by extreme variability at British colonial sites since it 
directly measures individual smoking habits. These personal 
habits, or lack of them, have produced highly variable 
percentages for this group regardless of site type (South 
1 977a: 104 , 106) . The Activities group would be expected to 
display considerable variability between classes at both 
domestic and commercial sites. However, the overall 
percentage for this group in the artifact profile should be 
higher at nondomestic or combination domes tic/nondomes tic 
sites than at strictly domestic sites due to relatively 
greater amounts and ranges of craft activity by-products. 
Sites possessing a primary functional context in the domestic 
sphere would be expected to exhibit higher percentages in the 
artifact groups associated primarily with domestic 
activities. It is suggested that the Architecture group is a 
more sensitive indicator of such factors as type of building 



241 



materials used, length of occupation and amount of 
remodeling, and building size, than it is of site function. 

The empirical artifact profiles for the Dobree and Hird 
Sites are presented in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. With respect 
to other 18th century British-American sites, the Frederica 
assemblages fall within the range of the Carolina Artifact 
Pattern proposed by South (1977a), with four exceptions from 
the Dobree Site and two exceptions for the Hird Site. In the 
case of the Dobree domestic groups, the Clothing, Furniture, 
and Personal groups are less than the minimum values in the 
Carolina ranges. For the Activities group, the value is 0.3% 
greater than the upper limit of the Carolina Artifact 
Pattern. Although the rest of the groups fall within the 
suggested ranges, their position within each range is of 
interest for interpreting site function. The value for the 
Kitchen group is at the extreme lower end of the Carolina 
range, while the Architecture and Tobacco Pipe groups 
approach the maximum values of the ranges; the arms group is 
about average. By contrast, the Hird assemblage has average 
values for the Kitchen and Activities groups, high values for 
the arms group, and a low Architecture value compared to 
South's sites. As with the Dobree Site, the Furniture, 
Clothing, and Personal groups were either near or just below 
the minimum values proposed by South. 

These differences can be summarized and contrasted by 
combining group percentages according to functional 
categories (domestic, miscellaneous, and activities). Values 



242 



Table 7-3. 


Empirical Artifact 


Profile, Dobree 


Site. 


Artifact Group 


Frequency , 
Dobree Site 


at 

Dobree Site 


at 

Model a 


Kitchen 


23106 


53.5 


51 .8-69.2 


Architecture 


12231 


28.4 


19.7-31.4 


Furni ture 


34 


0.08 


0.1- 0.6 


Arms 


326 


0.8 


0.1- 1.2 


Clothing 


233 


0.5 


0.6- 5.4 


Personal 


23 


0.05 


0.1- 0.5 


Tobacco Pipe 


5878 


13.6 


1.8-13.9 


Activities 


1311 


3.0 


0.9- 2.7 


Totals 


43142 


100.0 





a Range proposed for Carolina Artifact Pattern (South 1977a: 



243 



Table 7-4. 


Empirical Artifact 


Profile, Hird 


Site. 


Artifact Group 


Frequency , 
Hird Site 


%, 

Hird Site 


*' a 
Model 


Kitchen 


8349 


61.2 


5 1 . 8-69 . 2 


Archi tecture 


3190 


23.4 


19.7-31 .4 


Furniture 


1 0 


0 . 07 


0.1- 0.6 


Arms 


151 


1 . 1 


0.1- 1.2 


Clothing 


94 


0.7 


0.6- 5.4 


Personal 


1 0 


0 . 07 


0.1- 0.5 


Tobacco Pipe 


1 1620 


11.9 


1.8-13.9 


Activities 


223 


1.6 


0.9- 2.7 


Totals 


13647 


100. 1 





a Range proposed for Carolina Artifact Pattern (South 1977a: 107). 



244 



for the Carolina Pattern were found by determining the 
midpoints of the ranges suggested by South. 



Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica 
and Carolina Sites. 



Group Category 


Dobr ee 


n 1 r G 


Carol in; 


Domestic: Kitchen 


53.5 


61.2 


60.5 


Furniture 


A A Q 

(J . (JO 


A A "7 

0 . U 1 


A )l 


Clothing 


0.5 


0.7 


3.0 


Personal 


0.05 


0.07 


0.3 




54.13 


62.04 


ol~2 


Miscellaneous : 








Architecture 


28.4 


23.4 


25.5 


Arms 


0.8 


1 . 1 


0.6 


Tobacco Pipe 


13.6 


11.9 


33.9 


42.8 


36.4 


33.9 


Activities: Activities 


3.0 


1.6 


1.8 




3.0 


T76" 


T7B 7 


Totals 


99.93% 


99.95% 


99.9% 



a Seven sites reported by South (1977a). 



Although Lewis states that adherence to the Carolina 
Pattern "does not, in itself, prescribe a specific function 
to the settlement" or site (1977:192), it is the opinion of 
the present author that site function is monitored by the 
Carolina Artifact Pattern. A review of the original sites 
used by South in defining the Pattern reveals that three 
contained known or suspected domestic occupations, two are 
military sites, and one is a site on which a "specialized 
activity" (tailoring) occurred. The corresponding artifact 
frequencies from these three types of sites are 44.4%, 9.8%, 
and 45.8% (South 1 977a : 126-129) . However, the frequencies 



245 

for the Clothing and Arms groups from the tailor shop site 
were "adjusted" by South (1977a: 104) to "bring them in line" 
with the frequencies from the other four si tes--f requencies 
that are for the most part a reflection of domestic British 
colonial occupations. It is therefore proposed that the 
Carolina Artifact Pattern primarily reflects domestic 
function at a site or settlement. It logically follows that, 
in comparing a site to South's model, the greater the 
divergence from the basic Carolina Pattern, the more 
nondomestic activities were practiced at the site. This 
should be especially evident when group categories are used 
in the comparison. Following this reasoning, the frequencies 
shown in Table 7-5 indicate an extradomestic function for the 
Dobree Site that contrasts sharply with the primarily 
domestic function of the Hird Site. 

The contrast between the Arms group at the two sites is 
believed to reflect the degree to which civilian defense 
practices were integrated into colonial activities through 
time. The larger value from the Dobree Site is related to 
the primary occupation span at the site during the militarily 
unstable 1736-1745 period. At the Dobree Site there seems to 
have been more than one occupation, with at least one of the 
main ones occurring in the late 1740s. The lack of a need 
for concerted defense in the town during this late period is 
reflected by a lower contribution of Arms artifacts into the 
archeological record in comparison to the Hird Site. As 
expected, however, both sites show a much higher percentage 



246 

for this group than the 0.2% reported by Lewis for Camden 
(1977:191). 

A qualitative evaluation of the archeological evidence 
can also be employed in addressing the site function 
question. The presence at a domestic site of artifacts 
associated with small-scale manufacturing or craft activities 
can be cited as evidence of extradomest ic functions for the 
site. At Frederica, evidence of this type was recovered at 
all three sites reported in the present study. At the 
Hawkins-Davison Site, Deagan identified a large quantity of 
delftware drug jars which she attributed to Hawkins' 
documented in-house apothecary and surgical activities. 
Similarly, the presence of high frequencies of coarse salt 
glazed stoneware mugs and wine bottle and goblet fragments on 
the Davison side of the house were seen as confirmation of 
the tavern trade recorded for Davison (Deagan 1972:12,22-31). 
Using the frequencies mentioned by Fairbanks (1956:225) and 
Deagan (1972:52), a ratio of 9.1/1 glass per sherd fragments 
was derived for the Davison side of the site, compared to a 
0.27/1 glass/sherd ratio for the Hawkins assemblage. 
Although these figures are based on incomplete samples, they 
do seem to support the documented trade activity carried on 
by the site's occupants. 

At the Hird Lot, craft-related artifacts are included in 
Class 41 under the Activities group (Table 5-7). These 
consist of flint debitage and lead waste fragments as well as 
artifacts interpreted as dyer's equipment. These latter 



247 

items consist of a large, conical flat-based marver made of 
f ossilif erous limestone, a partial wine bottle, and a partial 
crouchware pot, all of which were found with a small amount 
of a bright red powder adhering to them. Although this 
substance could not be identified, it is believed to be an 
ingredient used in a dye formula. Numerous lead glazed 
earthenware creampan fragments found at the site may also 
have been used in a small-scale dying operation (Honerkamp 
1975:96) . 

The presence of this set of craft materials at this site 
is the only indirect archeological evidence of the identity 
of the site's occupants. The frustration that the present 
author and previous researchers at Frederica have experienced 
in attempting to relate archeological assemblages to specific 
documented occupants illustrates one of the problems involved 
in following a particularistic research strategy. 

Flint, leather, and lead waste material found at the 
Dobree Site have already been described. An additional type 
of nondomestic artifact recorded from the Dobree lot was iron 
slag. Over 66.5 kilograms of slag were recovered from a 
highly localized area of the plowzone as shown in the Figure 
7-1 contour map. More than seven kilograms were recovered 
from closed contexts. According to Victor Rolando, an expert 
on iron forges and furnaces in the northeastern U. S. , the 
slag from Frederica has the appearance of a waste product 
associated with a forge rather than a high temperature blast 
furnace; he suggested a blacksmith forge as the source of the 



Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone, 
Dobree Site. 



249 




250 



slag (personal communication). This view was also expressed 
by Dr. David E. Clark of the Materials Science Department of 
the University of Florida. 

None of the slag from the Dobree Site was included in 
the Activities class since to have done so would have totally 
obscured all relationships among the other artifact classes. 
It was expected that a considerable number of identifiable 
broken tools, spoiled products, and possibly finished 
products (in the case of nails) would be associated with a 
forge operation (Noel Hume 1 969a : 1 80- 1 82 ) and that these 
would be reflected in the Activities and Architecture groups. 
However, as already noted, neither the iron artifacts making 
up the various Activities classes nor the square and wrought 
nails included in the Nails class were unusually abundant. 
An attempt was made to identify a statistically significant 
association between the known forge by-product (slag) and 
suspected by-products (iron musket parts, miscellaneous iron 
tools, wrought and square nails, and unidentified iron 
fragments). As seen in Table 7-6, the product-moment 
coefficients computed for the plowzone slag and the five 
other suspected by-product categories indicate a fairly 
strong positive correlation with unidentified iron and, to a 
lesser extent, with iron musket parts. The miscellaneous 
strips, chunks, and fragments of iron in the unidentified 
category may represent raw material as well as waste 
products. Also correlated with the slag is the occurance of 
coal and clinkers. A total of 2192 coal fragments and 833 



251 



Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients for Six 
Artifact Categories, Dobree Site. 



CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RH0=0 / N = 63, 50 





I_MSKT 


IJDTHER 


IJJIDWT 


SLAGGRAM 


WROUGHT 


SQUARE 


I_MSKT 


1 .00000 
0.0000 
63 


0. 14646 
0.2521 

63 


0.45717 
0.0002 

63 


0.51746 
0.0001 
50 


0.41537 
0.0007 
63 


0.22503 
0.0762 

63 


I_0THER 


0. 14646 
0.2521 
63 


1 .00000 
0.0000 
63 


0.33719 
0.0069 
63 


0. 12773 
0.3767 
50 


0.68082 
0.0001 

63 


0.48087 
0.0001 

63 


I_UIDWT 


0.45717 
0.0002 
63 


0.33719 
0.0069 
63 


1 .00000 
0.0000 
63 


0.69527 
0.0001 
50 


0.55558 
0.0001 
63 


0.61484 
0.0001 
63 


SLAGGRAM 


0.51746 
0.0001 
50 


0. 12773 
0.3767 
50 


0.69527 
0.0001 
50 


1 .00000 
0.0000 
50 


0.31505 
0.0258 
50 


0.23281 
0. 1037 
50 


WROUGHT 


0.41537 
0.0007 
63 


0.68082 
0.0001 

63 


0.55558 
0.0001 
63 


0.31505 
0.0258 
50 


1 .00000 
0.0000 

63 


0.52930 
0.0001 
63 


SQUARE 


0.22503 
0.0762 
63 


0.48087 
0.0001 

63 


0.61484 
0.0001 

63 


0.23281 
0. 1037 
50 


0.52930 
0.0001 
63 


1 .00000 
0.0000 
6^ 



252 



clinkers were recovered with 293 and 109 found in closed 

contexts, respectively. A strong positive correlation is 

indicated by a product-moment coefficient of 0.91 for the 

coal and 0.82 for the clinkers (Table 7-7). It is suggested 

that the slag found at the Dobree Site represents a primary 

deposit of forge waste products. The concentration of this 

material almost entirely in the immediate vicinity of the 

posthole structure indicates that manufacturing activities 

took place within or directly adjacent to the structure. The 

absence of other features that can be positively identified 

with the forge operation is not surprising given the nature 

of the site disturbances and the modest equipment used in 

blacksmi thing. Noel Hume's summary of the archeological 

characteristics of colonial blacksmith shops illustrates the 

similarities that the Dobree Site forge shares with similar 

contemporaneous forge operations: 

The shop itself did not have to be large and could 
be accomodated in a building measuring no more than 
14' x 20'... The fire ((in the hearth)) rested on an 
iron grid through which the ashes fell into an arched 
waste tunnel below. From an archeological point 
of view, it is significant that the fire was small 
and did not come into contact with the ground. There 
is therefore no reason to expect that the remains of 
a blacksmith's shop will be identifiable by a massive 
scorching of the ground or by the distorted and 
vitrified bricks that one associates with a pottery kiln 
or glass furnace. On the contrary, the hearth and chim- 
ney would suffer little, and when abandoned, most of the 
bricks could be salvaged and reused elsewhere, leaving 
nothing behind but a bracket-shaped mark on the ground 
(Noel Hume 1 969a : 1 79- 1 80 ) . 

This description also indicates that the function of the 

rectangular pit (Feature 10) found next to the post structure 

is associated with the forge operation. The use of this 



253 



Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag, 
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site. 



CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB 

SLAGGRAM 

SLAGGRAM 1.00000 
0.0000 

CLINKER 0.82980 
0.0001 

COAL 0.91774 
0.0001 



R UNDER H0:RHO=0 / N = 50 



CLINKER 


COAL 


0.82980 


0.91774 


0.0001 


0.0001 


1 .00000 


0.94834 


0.0000 


0.0001 


0.94834 


1 .00000 


0.0001 


0.0000 



254 



feature as a waste pit or a pit for storing blacksmi thing raw 
materials would account for the heavy concentration of ash 
noted in the pit, its unusal form, and its location in the 
forge area. The large square posthole (Feature 27) within a 
circular pit (Feature 24) may have resulted from the use of a 
wooden anvil base anchored into the ground. 

It is difficult to date with accuracy the period in 
which the forge was in operation. The only closed context 
feature which contained a significant amount of slag as well 
as a sufficient number of dateable ceramics for determining a 
mean ceramic date was Feature 10, which yielded a date of 
1740.5. Mean ceramic dates for the precreamware ceramics 
recovered from the plowzone can also be used to indirectly 
date the forge. A contour map of the dates derived for each 
excavation unit having a minimum of 30 dateable sherds is 
presented in Figure 7-2. A close correspondence is seen 
between slag concentrations and relatively early mean ceramic 
dates. The plowzone dates found for part of the structure, 
in which the main concentration of slag occurs, range from 
1738.5 to 1743.6. The smaller concentration of slag to the 
south of the building is also located in an area of early 
dates. In contrast, areas of the site in which "late" 
features but little slag are found generally exhibit late 
plowzone mean ceramic dates. It is therefore suggested that 
the forge was in operation during the first few years of 
Frederica's existence. Temporal and artifactual evidence 
from the features and plowzone also indicate that a domestic 



Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for Plowzone 
Ceramics, Dobree Site. 



256 




257 



occupation of the site occurred possibly during and certainly- 
after the commercial one. 

The unusually high percentage ( 10.5%) of Oriental 
porcelain at the Dobree Site is also seen as indicative of a 
domestic occupation. As shown in Figure 7-3, porcelain 
ceramics were found primarily within the Lot 31 area, in the 
general vicinity of the house. This precludes the 
possibility that deposition of this ware was by the occupants 
of the adjacent lot to the west. The almost exclusive 
tableware function of porcelain indicates that it was 
associated with the domestic occupation of the site. Since 
the primary domestic occupation is believed to have occurred 
in the middle to late 17*403 , it is suggested that the 
relatively high frequency of porcelain at this site is 
attributed to differences in the economic-transportation- 
communication networks linking Frederica with Britain before 
and after 1745. It is assumed that these networks would be 
more subject to disruption and attenuation from military 
exigencies during the initial period of Frederica's 
settlement, particularly with respect to supplies of luxery 
goods such as porcelain. After 1745, stabelizat ion and 
consolidation of supply routes would have been possible due 
to the cessation of British-Spanish hostilities. 

It is also possible that the planned aspects of 
Frederica's society also may be reflected in the 
archeological record. The two earlier sites were occupied 
during that period of Frederica's history when most of the 



Figure 7-3. Distribution of Oriental Porcelain Fragments, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



oosace lot. excavated squares absolute value »«nce applying to each level 

{>a»IHUI>< [NCLUOEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY! 

oistkisutick of forceiain ceramics: toxoxf 

SOUTH ••no. FREOERICA "IMIWr 1.00 li.fO 2*. 20 35.30 A7.A0 

HIIKUD 12. CO 2A.20 "S.flO A 7. AC 5«.0" 

OAT* VALUE EXTREMES ARE 1 .00 59.00 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE KANGE APPLY I KG TC EACH LEVJ 

20.00 20.00 20.00 23.00 20.00 

FREQUENCY OlSTKieUTION OF OAT* POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL 

LEVEL 1 ? J A 5 



......... ».♦♦..♦♦. cooooococ 

svnaCLS »♦♦♦ »«■♦♦ ooao oooo amam •••• 

......... cccococoo ••••••••• raau 

......... »♦♦..♦♦.. ooooooooc 

FREQ. 27 ?3 



260 



material needs of the colonists were supplied by the town 
store, either through the Trustee's philanthropy or through 
sale. The regimented characteristics of Frederica's economy 
resulting from this single outlet of material goods may 
account in part for the similarity of the archeological 
assemblages from the Dobree versus the Hird and Hawkins- 
Davison sites. Of course, socioeconomic status, ceramic 
need, and site function could also account for the 
differences noted. The relative importance of these factors 
can be tested through future research at Frederica. If 
availability is the most important factor, there should be 
consistent contrasts in the ceramic assemblages between early 
and late sites that are similar to those described in this 
study. It is also predicted that the variability in ceramic 
assemblages from Frederica will be greater between late sites 
than between early sites due to the relative differences in 
availability of ceramics during the late (post-1745) and 
early periods. 

In summary, both quantitative and qualitative evidence 
have been used to determine site function at Frederica. At 
the three sites examined, the occurrance of domestic as well 
as craft and manufacturing activities was qualitatively 
inferred from the presence of data sets associated with both 
types of activities. Quantitative analysis of artifact 
assemblages also indicated the multifunctional dimensions of 
the sites: through comparison of the Hird and Dobree 
artifact profiles, it was possible to isolate evidence of 



261 

nondomestic activity as reflected in the by-products of 
small-scale production activities. 

As predicted, artifacts associated with the identifiable 
architectural features at the Hawkins-Davison and Dobree 
sites indicate that the colonial domestic-craft activities 
were carried out in, and directly adjacent to, the dwellings. 

The virtual absence of artifacts other than slag 
associated with the forge may indicate a short life span for 
this manufacturing operation at the Dobree Site. This is in 
accord with the general documentary and archeological picture 
at Frederica: few of the town's craftsmen and tradesmen 
actually practiced their callings on a full time basis. The 
rapid turnover in the town's population, discussed in Chapter 
IV, and the lack of identifiable craft activity by-products 
noted during extensive excavations of the town (Moore 1958; 
Shiner 1958a) support the contention that the practice of 
most manufacturing and craft endeavors at Frederica could not 
be economically supported under the military-frontier 
conditions that existed from 1736 to 1745. 

An attentuation of complexity at the settlement, 
compared to an English market town, resulted from the limited 
economic options that could be pursued by the colonists. The 
archeological manifestations of the loss of complexity at 
Frederica are illustrated by the Activities artifact group. 
Although the percentages for this group are higher at 
Frederica than at Camden, the activities represented by the 
majority of the artifacts included in this group are 



262 



indirectly associated with the need for defense: gunflint 
and lead ball production. The undocumented, short-lived 
forge operation that was present along with a domestic 
occupation at the Dobree Site serves to point out the effects 
that economic and political factors had on frontier 
adaptations at Frederica. 

Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution 

Stanley South has long been concerned with the locations 

of artifacts relative to structures at British colonial 

sites. Using the experience gained from a decade of 

excavations at ruins in Brunswick, South Carolina, South has 

defined a pattern of refuse discard which he has designated 

as the Brunswick Pattern. The formal statement of this 

pattern is as follows: 

On British-American sites of the eighteenth century 
a concentrated refuse deposit will be found at the 
points of entrance and exit in dwellings, shops, 
and military fortifications. (South 1977a:48) 

South demonstrates this pattern at three sites in Brunswick 

by illustrating the frequency distributions of several 

classes of artifacts that are present in and around building 

foundations. Although sometimes difficult to interpret 

visually, a series of conformant maps presented by South 

showing artifact frequency symbolism around the structural 

foundations present at the three sites seems to support the 

Brunswick Pattern generalization. However, at all three 

sites there has been very little excavation of areas that are 

not adjacent to the foundations, and the differences in sizes 



263 



of the excavation units have not been taken into account. In 
addition, feature artifacts are added to artifacts recovered 
from disturbed and undisturbed middens, so that what actually 
is demonstrated by South's maps is the location of features 
as revealed by their artifact frequencies. It should be 
obvious from the information presented in the two preceding 
chapters of this study that if South had sampled back lot 
areas of his sites, the resulting artifact distribution maps 
would have shown considerable variation from those 
illustrated in Method and Theory in Historical Archeology . 
The ceramic frequency contour map presented in this study 
(Figure 5-6) is in sharp contrast with South's Brunswick maps 
in terms of correspondence between ceramic distributions and 
structure location. Especially noteable is the lack of 
distinction in primary and secondary distributions of 
artifacts in and around houses. Had the feature material 
been added along with the plowzone artifacts, the contrasts 
would have been even more pronounced. Additional maps of the 
same artifact classes used by South (wine bottle, bone, 
pipestera, nails, window glass) are presented in Figure 7-H 
through Figure 7-8. In each case, the distributions seem to 
vary independently of each other with one exception: 
relatively high numbers of nails, wine bottle fragments, 
window glass fragments, and to a lesser extent pipestems, 
were deposited together in Square 28. This unit is directly 
adjacent to the east extension of the post structure. The 
mean ceramic date for this square is 1741 (see Figure 7-2), 



Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



265 




Figure 7-5. Distribution of Faunal Materials, Plowzone, 
Dobree Site. 



267 




Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe Fragments, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



269 




Figure 7-7. Distribution of Wrought and Square Nails, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



271 




Figure 7-8. Distribution of Window Glass Fragments, 
Plowzone, Dobree Site. 



273 




274 

which suggests that they are associated with the nondomestic 
occupation at the site. 

Since the distribution contours presented in the 
foregoing figures are based on total site artifact 
frequencies, it could be argued that a Brunswick Pattern of 
artifacts in and around the structure would be present if the 
sample frame was reduced down to the area around the site 
building. However, inspection of the frequency values 
printed for each square in the SYMAP output indicates again 
no overall correspondence to South's pattern and it is 
certainly not possible to locate doorways, as South does, by 
the correspondence in disposal areas for the various artifact 
classes . 

The evidence presented here concerning refuse disposal 
and artifact distribution at the Dobree Site does not conform 
to South's Brunswick Pattern of Refuse- Di sposal . The 
nondomestic function of the Dobree Site structure may account 
for the observed differences, in which case South's Brunswick 
Pattern, like the Carolina Pattern, may reflect aspects of 
domestic behavior. Excavation of additional structures, 
along with samples of the associated back lot areas, is 
needed before the universal applicability of the Brunswick 
Pattern at British colonial sites can be accepted. 

Subsistence and Diet 
All of the questions investigated in the previous 
sections have ultimately been related to various aspects of 
British colonial adaptations to the social and natural 



275 



conditions of the Georgia frontier. The results of previous 
research on frontier process have been consciously 
incorporated into the present study as a source for 
generating testable hypotheses and for comparative purposes. 
Unfortunately, a comparable body of knowledge on frontier 
subsistence and diet is not available. Hence, rather than 
compare the faunal collections in terms of the specific 
nature of the adaptations at each site, the approach used in 
this section will be to test a subsistence model against the 
zooarcheological evidence from each site. Explanations 
accounting for the particular differences and similarities in 
the three faunal collections are of less interest at this 
level of research than are explanations accounting for the 
differences and similarities between the expected model 
results and the observed archeological evidence. 

For the following reasons, it is believed that the 
samples reported here represent an important source of 
zooarcheological information from which patterns of faunal 
resource utilization during the British colonial period in 
the Southeast can be derived: 

1) Temporal parameters are well controlled. At Freder- 
ica, the three sites were all within the 1736-55 
period . 

2) The sites are located within the same frontier set- 
tlement, with potentially equal access by the occu- 
pants to the natural resources of the surrounding 
evi ronments . 

3) The occupants of the sites were all derived from the 
same British tradition. 

4) The diversity of the faunal samples, in terms of 
species recovered and in terms of the range of 



276 

contexts from which the samples were taken, is 
high. The "single feature bias" that character- 
izes many historic faunal studies is absent. 

Before presenting the subsistence model, a short summary of 

the previous research on colonial foodways will be given in 

order to clarify the reasoning used in choosing the 

particular research strategy employed in this section. 

Previous Research 

With some notable exceptions, many historical site 
faunal studies can be characterized as little more than 
descriptive afterthoughts, tacked on to the end of site 
reports in hidden appendices, conspicuous only by their lack 
of integration. Many deserve this "poor stepchild" status, 
as evinced by the cursory, unfocussed approaches used even on 
large, well preserved faunal assemblages. This is in 
contrast to the increasingly important emphasis that 
zooarcheological studies have recieved at prehistoric sites — 
the same sites that historical archeologists are pleased to 
use as examples or the relatively impoverished nature of the 
prehistoric data base when compared to that of their own. 
The irony of this scenario would be amusing were it not for 
the less-than-f lattering implications it entails. 

Rather than attribute the relative dearth of substantive 
studies to the unpleasant possibility that Ian C. Walker's 
(1967, 1974) worst fears concerning the competence of 
historical archeologists in this country have been realized, 
it is suggested that this neglect has resulted from two 
related deficiencies in method and theory: (1) the 



277 

heterogeneous methods and techniques used in faunal analysis 
by different researchers has produced a plethora of 
noncomparable results, thereby discouraging attempts at 
intersite comparisons, and (2) when a model of resource use 
at colonial sites has been adopted at all, it tends to stress 
the overall importance of domestic food sources and the 
protection from the environment that these sources conferred 
on historic European populations. 

These problems can be seen as related in that few 
attempts will be made at formulating unifying questions 
toward which zooarcheological research can be oriented while 
the prospect of comparative studies, so essential in the 
methodological tool kits of athropological archeologi sts , is 
lacking. As long as the theory upon which it is based 
remains undeveloped, faunal analysis will continue in diverse 
and unconnected ways, ad inf ini turn . To a certain extent, 
prehistoric archeology also suffers from this malaise. 

Fortunately, this circular reasoning has been avoided in 
several imaginative studies, for instance Joanne Bowen's 
research at Mott Farm (1975), Steve Cumbaa's use of faunal 
materials to illustrate acculturati ve processes at Spanish 
colonial sites (1975), and the work done by Charles E. 
Cleland ( 1970) and Gary Shapiro ( 1 978a , 1 978b ) at 
Michilimackinac . Of central concern to these authors are the 
implications associated with the use of wild versus domestic 
animal resources in the foodways of historic New World 
populations, and how these foodways compare with their Old 



278 

World counterparts. Drawing on this and other research, the 
present author and colleague Elizabeth Reitz have attempted 
to test a number of hypotheses concerning resource use at 
colonial sites: Reitz has made an intersite comparison of 
British and Spanish subsistence patterns in the southeastern 
United States (1979), Honerkamp has tried to relate relative 
differences in status between three British colonial 
households to differences in associated faunal assemblages 
(1980), and together we are preparing an in-depth study of 
resource utilization at the Hird Site (1980). Some of the 
concepts defined in this last paper are useful for the 
purposes of the present study (see below). 

Subsistence Models 

As indicated earlier, uncritical acceptance of the idea 
of domestic food sources buffering historic European 
populations from all but minor adaptations to New World 
conditions has been prevalent in historical archeology for 
some time. If this hypothesis is to be tested, it must be 
made more explicit. Jay Allen Anderson's synthesis of 
British foodways, consisting of a compilation of primary 
materials dealing with rural and urban food habits in 17th 
century England, can be used to define what is referred to by 
Reitz and Honerkamp as the "British Barnyard Complex." 

According to Anderson (1971), the English yoeman 
practiced a mixed farming strategy that included maintaining 
a wide variety of domestic livestock, with wild animals 
constituting a small but important part of the diet. The 



279 

most important source of meat was swine, followed by sheep; 
cattle were typically slaugtered only after their usefulness 
as dairy producers had been diminished by age, hence they 
were not a major source of meat. Rabbits and a variety of 
fowl were raised for meat, and wild hare and birds were 
snared or shot. Due to severe hunting restrictions, venison 
was a rarity for those in the middle or lower classes. Fish 
were an important component of the urban and rural diets, 
with over 100 varieties consumed either salted or fresh. 

If the traditional pattern of animal use described above 
was transferred to the New World as a complete complex, 
several patterns could be expected to be observed in the 
faunal record. The British faunal pattern would include 
mostly swine remains, followed by sheep and a few aged 
cattle. Goats might also appear in limited numbers. There 
would be a few domestic rabbits, wild hare, and an occasional 
deer. A wide variety of domestic fowl should be recovered, 
as well as a large number of wild fowl of various species. 
Fish would be common in the assemblages, with marine species 
being most abundant. 

Although Anderson deals with basically rural food 
habits, he indicates that those few people who live in market 
towns and cities in the 17th century kept barnyard animals on 
their lots, which also included a garden and an orchard 
(1971:20). He states that "the majority of these part-time 
farmers were craftsmen who because their skills were long and 
difficult to learn gradually became specialists" (Anderson 



280 

1971:5); in fact, Anderson equates the urban artisans, 
craftsmen, and tradesmen as the urban counterparts of the 
rural husbandman and yeomen (1971:15). Since many of the 
Frederica colonists had a similar background (Coulter and 
Saye 1949), this description probably fits the majority of 
the population at Fort Frederica during the main British 
occupation . 

Comparison With the Model 

An examination of the faunal evidence indicates that 
part of the model for colonial resource utilization is in 
error. The percent biomass of nondomestic animals from the 
three sites (Tables 5-10 through 5-12) ranges from a low at 
the Dobree Site of 9 . 7% to 17- 5% and 21.9% at the Hawkins- 
Davison and Hird Sites, respectively (excluding commensals 
such as rats, snakes, and toads). This does not support the 
notion of a static, unchanging pattern of meat consumption in 
early Georgia that mirrored the European pattern. On the 
contrary, a major adaptation to frontier conditions is 
implied by these percentages. It is suggested that the 
differences between the sites reflect temporal factors: part 
of the occupation at the Dobree Site was during the late 
1740s, by which time the availability of wild resources may 
well have been dwindling, while the other two sites were 
occupied during the early part of Frederica's history. Reitz 
(1979) has also offered the suggestion that socioeconomic 
factors may account for differences in domestic and wild 
animal use. She has observed a positive correlation between 



281 



wild resource utilization at Spanish St. Augustine and high 
socieconomic status in 17th and 18th century occupations. 
Future research at closely dated sites at Frederica should 
clarify the temporal and social aspects of the domestic 
versus wild animal utilization question. 

A breakdown of the three major biomass contributors at 
the sites is presented in Table 7-8. There is a clear 
division between the Dobree biomass and the Hird and Hawkins- 
Davison biomass for both cattle ( Bos taurus ) and deer 
( Odocoileus virginianus ) . No such clear-cut distinction can 
be made for swine ( Sus scrof a ) . Since much of the Dobree 
faunal assemblage was recovered from late (post-1745) 
features, the similarity in the swine percentages at the 
three sites suggests that the availability of this resource 
remained constant through time. The low swine figures at all 
three sites clearly indicate a major modification of the 
British Barnyard Complex. This shift away from swine to 
cattle as a source of meat seems to be a feature of the 
southeastern United States that is characteristic of Spanish 
as well as British colonial sites (Reitz 1979). 

Since the model emphasizes the use of cattle as a source 
of dairy products rather than meat, an attempt was made to 
determine the age structure of the the cattle represented in 
the Hird assemblage. The age of specimens can be determined 
by observation of various elements in terms of the presence 
or absence of epiphysial fusion. The rate of fusion of major 
elements for most of the larger mammals is known (Gilbert 



282 



Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites, 
Frederica, Georgia. 







MNI 


Biomass 




Site a 


Species 


# 


% 


kg 






Dobree 


cattle 


21 


16.5 


97.5 


78. 


ji 


Hawk ins -Davison 


Cattle 


5 


11.1 


61.4 


65. 


D 


Bird 


Cattle 


15 


6.? 


163.3 


67. 


2 


Dobree 


Swine 


17 


13.3 


10.7 


8. 


C 
0 


Hawk ins -Da vi son 


Swine 


6 


13.3 


10.1 


10. 


7 


Hird 


Swine 


14 


5.9 


24.0 


9. 


8 


Dobree 


Deer 


15 


11.8 


7.2 


5. 


8 


Hawkins-Davison 


Deer 


8 


17.7 


14.3 


15. 


2 


Hird 


Deer 


18 


7.6 


35.8 


14. 


7 



Values for the Hawkins-Davison and Hird sites are from Reitz 
and Honerkamp ( 1980) . 



283 

1977; Schmidt 1972; Silver 1963). These data can be charted 
for archeological materials and the approximate age of the 
animal at death can be determined. In some cases it is also 
possible to discuss the use made of each species; the 
presence of very old cattle or sheep may indicate dairy or 
wool industries. Age determinations were made for the three 
major biomass contributors at the site: cattle, swine and 
deer. Due to differential rates of element fusion, the four 
age categories calculated in Table 7-9 overlap within each 
species and are not exactly equivalent between species. 
However, in every case a conservative estimate has been made 
for the element age by placing each element in the oldest age 
category possible. Although this method of summarizing age 
data has several drawbacks, it is believed to provide at 
least a rough estimate of the age structures of the species 
in question. 

Twenty-six cattle elements, 26 swine elements, and 55 
deer elements found in the Hird features could be used to 
make the age determinations in Table 7-9. The nature of 
these "availability" samples--restr icted to appropriate 
epiphysial elements — obviously precludes any absolute claim 
for representativeness for the populations from which the 
samples were derived. It is interesting to note, however, 
that even with a classification procedure that was designed 
to overestimate the age of elements, 21% of the deer 
( Odocoileus virginianus ) elements and 50% and 46% of the 
cattle (Bos taurus) and swine (Sus scrofa) elements, 



284 



Table 7-9. Ages 
Hird 


of Three Species 
Site, Frederica. 


by Element 


Fus ion , 


Age Bracket at 
Time of Death a 


Cow 


Pi£ 


Deer 


I - Infant 


0 


5 (19$) 


3 (5$) 


II - Juvenile/Infant 


13 (50$) 


7 (27$) 


9 (16$) 


III - Juvenile/Adult 


7 (27$) 


12 (46$) 


39 (71$) 


IV - Adult 


6 (23$) 


2 (8$) 


4 (7$) 


Totals 


26 


26 


55 



Based on frequency of identifiable elements for which evi- 
dence of fusion, semifusion, or lack of fusion was present. 
Age brackets for each species are defined as follows: 

Cow: Infant - less than 1.5 years 

Juvenile/Infant - Less than 3 to 4 years 
Juvenile/Adult - At least 1.5 years 
Adult - 3.5 years or older 

Pig : Infant - Less than 2 years 

Juvenile/Infant - Less than 3.5 years 
Juvenile/Adit - 1 to 2 years or older 
Adult - 3 years or older 

Deer: Infant - Less than 1 year 

Juvenile/Infant - Less than 2 to 3 years 
Juvenile/Adult - More than 1 year 
Adult - 3 years or older 



285 

respectively, were included in the juveni le/ inf ant or infant 
categories (i.e., under three to four years of age at time of 
death). The high percentage of "young" elements for cattle 
is clearly not consistent with the British Barnyard Complex 
orientation toward long-lived dairy cattle. On the other 
hand, 23% of the cattle elements were from animals at least 
40 months old, so that the presence of dairying activity 
cannot be entirely dismissed. 

A comparison of the age bracket percentages between the 
three species is also informative. The relatively low 
percentage of young deer (21/6) as compared to the cattle 
(50%) and swine ( 46% ) indicates that when husbandry practices 
were absent — as with deer--choice and selection were less 
important than opportunity. Even if it is assumed that the 
pig lived a completely feral existence on St. Simons Island 
during the colonial period, it has been the experience of the 
author that young wild hogs are considerably easier to catch 
than old ones, with or without the use of firearms. The same 
cannot be said for deer. This differential degree in 
procurement success for the young versus old animals in swine 
and deer may account for the differences noted in the age 
groups shown in Table 7-9. 

The evidence reviewed above indicates that instead of a 
static model of human behavior emphasizing "cultural 
conservatism" or "continuity in European and colonial diets," 
the behavior of historic human populations in Georgia can be 
better explained in terms of adaptation to a new environment. 



286 



The British Barnyard Complex was substantially modified by 
Frederica's residents. Instead of sheep, pigs, and a few 
aged cattle, the faunal assemblages contained young cattle in 
addition to deer and pigs, with only five caprine individuals 
identified from the three sites. The animal called 
goat/sheep ( Capra / Ovis sp.) was probably a rare example of an 
animal not common at Frederica or in Georgia (Bonner 1964). 
The British tendendy to include a wide range of wild birds in 
the diet was continued at the Hird Site (MNI=48), but the use 
of fish was substantially reduced at all three sites. 
Additionally, the lack of netted species such as mullet 
( Mugil sp.) indicates that net technology was not transferred 
to the new environment, apparently because fish no longer 
constituted an important dietary resource in the presence of 
the cattle herd. The dairy industry was not significant as 
part of the adaptive strategy at Frederica. 

Of particular interest to the present author is the 
heavy reliance on cattle and concomitant limited use of pig 
that is indicated at the three sites. Many researchers have 
emphasized the efficiency of pigs as "calorie convertors" in 
woodland environments (Bennett 1960; Bidwell and Falconer 
1925; Ross 1980). According to most historical studies, the 
use of pig supposedly far outpaced that of cattle by the 19th 
century in the southern United States (Genovese 1974; Gray 
1933; Hiliard 1972; Martin 1942). However, in the 17th and 
18th centuries the reverse has been found to be true, not 
only at Frederica but also at British and Spanish sites in 



287 



St. Augustine (Reitz 1979, 1980). A major historical study 
of colonial agriculture in Georgia also supports this 
contention (Bonner 1964). Thus, the structure of the 
Frederica faunal assemblages conforms to a regional pattern 
of animal utilization that cross-cuts temporal and cultural 
parameters. Hypotheses addressing the reasons for this 
apparent diversion from the expected pattern of colonial meat 
consumption need to be formulated and tested. In so doing, 
historical archeologists will be in a position to make 
important contributions to current debates in cultural 
anthropology (Harris and Ross 1978; Ross 1980) as well as 
develop our own models of resource utilization. The results 
reported here raise questions about traditional historical 
view of meat consumption in the antebellum South. The 
historian's model emphasizing pork as the primary meat 
component in 19th century plantation diets needs to be 
demonstrated archeologically before it can be used as an a 
priori assumption in the interpretation of slave, planter, 
and overseer sites. For the sites of the 17th and 18th 
centuries there is even less justification for adopting the 
historical model, and attempts to do so often raise more 
questions than they answer (Miller 1978). 

Instead of focussing only on a single difference between 
cattle and swine (i.e., calorie conversion in a woodland 
environment), it is necessary to consider other factors that 
could affect the suitability of each animal as a source of 
meat. For instance, Charles H. Fairbanks has suggested that 



288 



the highly dispersed grazing and foraging lands in early- 
Georgia would have encouraged utilization of cattle since 
they are much easier to round up in a free range situation 
than swine (1980). Differential resistance to diseases and 
climatic variation could also have contributed to the shift 
to cattle (Hoornbeck 1980). It is obvious that much more 
research on pig and cattle ecology during the colonial period 
will be needed before accurate models of colonial resource 
utilization can be offered. 



CHAPTER VIII 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Over the last 30 years considerable archeological and 
historical research has been carried out at Frederica. Most 
of this research has been oriented toward the goal of 
"reconstruction of past lifeways" in a traditional National 
Park Service interpretive framework. Implicit in this 
approach has been a research emphasis on Frederica's "Big 
House" areas: excavation of the substantial brick and tabby 
structures that front the two main streets in the town. Due 
to a combination of ineffective excavation procedures 
(trenching) and a Big House bias, sites containing evidence 
of more modest structures lacking extant brick or tabby 
foundations have been virtually ignored by previous 
researchers. In the interest of obtaining a more balanced 
picture of Frederica's past, the present study has been 
concerned with exploring an archeologically neglected and 
historically unknown type of site from an anthropological 
perspective. The Dobree Site was chosen for excavation due 
to its location away from the central streets of the town, 
the documentary indication of the presence of a wooden house, 
and the presumed low socioeconomic position of the site's 
occupants. Although the "archeology of the proletariat" has 
not been a traditional goal at Frederica, it has nevertheless 

289 



290 

generally been recognized as a necessary though perhaps 
unglamorous source of information on a significant aspect of 
Frederica's past. 

Besides an anthropological orientation, other 
characteristics of the present study set it off from the 
previous research at Frederica. Systematic excavation, 
quantitative methods, intensive zooarcheological analysis of 
faunal remains, and an explicitly comparative approach are 
the most obvious contrasts. The use of Lewis' frontier model 
to relate the archeological evidence from the three sites 
investigated to cultural proccesses associated with a British 
colonial adaptation to frontier conditions in Georgia also 
represents a major departure from the research strategies 
employed in earlier projects. Instead of an uncritical 
particularistic approach that attempts to confirm or 
supplement the written record concerning the presence of 
specific site inhabitants, functions, materials, or houses at 
a site, a more flexible approach has been taken in which 
regional patterns of behavior are seen as accounting for 
differences and similarities in the archeological record. 
Matching the initials on a spoon handle with the owner's name 
is left to Ivor Noel Hume and other particularly gifted and 
fortunate archeologists . 

The methodological-theoretical approach used by the 
author has had important effects on the structure and nature 
of this research. The organizing framework of the pattern 
recognition method, with its emphasis on complete 



291 

quantification of archeological data, together with a cul- 
tural materialist theoretical position, has found application 
in the use of Lewis' frontier model of sociocultural 
adaptation for the explanation of archeological variability. 
The model itself is a reasonable analogue of a complex and 
dynamic adaptive process in a frontier setting. It 
incorporates concepts from geography, history, and 
anthropology in the definition of its characteristics, 
including (1) prolonged contact between the colony and the 
parent society, (2) loss of complexity, (3) dispersed 
settlement patterning (except where impeded by special 
constraints), (4) dispersed frontier town as the nucleus for 
centralizing activities, and (5) temporal growth replicated 
spatially. Frederica was found to meet all the requirements 
of a frontier town; thus, the frontier model was considered 
to be an appropriate tool for interpreting the archeological 
record . 

Some of the results obtained from the systematic, 
quantified excavation strategy applied at the Dobree Site 
were unanticipated. While the site's cultural affiliation 
was confirmed as British colonial, as were the Hird and 
Hawkins-Davison sites, an examination of temporal parameters 
revealed that the three sites contrasted considerably in 
number, duration, and sequence of occupations. In addition 
to a circa 1740-42 occupation, a definite late 1740s 
component was identified at the Dobree Site using 
chronologically sensitive artifacts. The Hird Site appears 



292 

to have had a single continuous occupation until about 1 748- 
49. Evidence of a post-1760 occupation was revealed for the 
Hawkins-Davison Site but the primary occupation was during 
the period from 1736 to 1742. At the Dobree Site, the 
remains of a post-supported structure were recorded, as was 
evidence of a short-term blacksmith or ironmonger operation 
adjacent to the house. The other two sites were also found 
to contain evidence of nondomestic activity sets. 

Comparison of the form and content of the archeological 
evidence from Frederica to different aspects of the frontier 
model revealed a close correspondence between the predictions 
derived from the model and the data recovered. The 
settlement pattern of the town reflects military exigencies 
and the effects of high population density, as indicated by a 
concentrated, evenly-spaced row arrangement of narrow lots. 
This pattern at Frederica more closely resembles a European 
market town than the dispersed pattern found at Camden. The 
different adaptive pressures at these sites were also 
expressed at the lot level through the patterning of sub- 
surface features. Clustering of features within lots, 
maximum utilization of lot elements, differential bone 
deposition, and demarcation of property boundaries were all 
found to occur as a result of sociopolitical and demographic 
factors affecting the structural arrangement of the town as a 
whole . 

Quantitative and qualitative evidence of site function 
was also found to reflect frontier constraints and 



293 



conditions. The multifunctional dimensions of all three 
sites were indicated by the occurrence of domestic as well as 
craft activity by-products. Comparison of quantitatively 
derived artifact profiles yielded small but systematic 
differences between the Frederica sites and a series of sites 
excavated by South that were explicable in terms of 
functional differences between the sites. 

An examination of how the size of the archeological 
research frame affects our perceptions and conclusions has 
been made through reference to South's Brunswick Pattern of 
Refuse Disposal. The complete excavation of a colonial lot 
containing a post-supported structure has allowed a close 
inspection of the relationship between feature and midden 
deposits of artifacts and an architectural structure to which 
they may be related. In contrast, South's research involved 
limited testing of areas immediately adjacent to structures. 
The present study did not reveal the clear-cut patterns of 
refuse disposal at building entranceways described by the 
Brunswick Pattern. Instead, the results of the Dobree Site 
excavation indicate that the artifact distributions are the 
result of "bimodal trash disposal behavior" by the site's 
occupants. The first mode is characterized by dispersed 
surface disposal of trash that shows little orientation to 
the structure, while the second mode involves concentration 
of trash--especially faunal remains — in subsurface features, 
again without reference to the location of the house. It is 
not possible to predict a pattern of bimodal trash disposal 



294 

due to the limited sample used to define it, but these 
findings do suggest that the Brunswick Pattern may simply be 
an artifact of the sampling frame used by South rather than 
the result of systematic refuse disposal behavior at British 
colonial sites. On a higher level, this observation has 
implications for the application of the frontier model to the 
interpretation of archeological sites, in that our perception 
of a frontier settlement on the edge of a cultural area will 
be dependent on whether the settlement is studied in 
isolation or in its regional context. 

Finally, a static model of resource utilization which 
has traditionally been used to interpret faunal remains at 
historic sites was evaluated against the zooarcheological 
data recovered at Frederica. The British Barnyard Complex 
model posits a "transplanted Englishman" interpretation of 
colonial adaptations in the New World whereby domestic food 
sources buffered historic European populations from any 
large-scale environmental adjustments. Using Jay Allen 
Anderson's historical study of English f oodways , a 
traditional British pattern was defined in which heavy use of 
swine and sheep and, secondarily, dairy cattle was 
emphasized. At Frederica, biomass estimates from the three 
sites indicate a fairly heavy reliance on wild animal species 
that is clearly inconsistent with the British Barnyard model. 
A breakdown of the biomass figures according to species 
indicates a nearly 6.5 to 1 ratio of cattle to swine biomass 
at the sites, which is again in contrast to the pattern 



295 

predicted by the model. Evidence derived from the aging of 
bone elements recovered from the Hird Site indicates that old 
cattle were rarely slaughtered; the use of cattle as sources 
of meat rather than dairy products is therefore implied. 
Lack of fit between the traditional British model and the 
empirical evidence at Frederica suggests that a major 
revision of our perception of historic period subsistence 
adaptation is in order. 

The research reported here illustrates the utility of 
the frontier model in the examination and the interpretation 
of archeological evidence for adaptive processes at British 
colonial sites. The success of this approach stems from its 
concern with basic, material aspects of culture and the 
systematic study of their archeological manifestations. It 
is hoped that the results reported here will engender further 
refinements of the frontier model of human adaptation in the 
colonial period. 



REFERENCES CITED 



Anderson, Jay Allen 

1971 A 'Solid Sufficiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman 
Foodways in Stuart England. Ph.D. dissertation, University 
of Pennsylvania. 

Ascher, Robert 

197^ Tin Can Archeology. Historical Archeology 8:5-16. 

Auspourger, Samuel 
1736 A Plan of Frederica A Town in the Plantation of Georgia 
in the Province of Carolina as layd out by Mr. Oglethorpe 
1736. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St. 
Simons Island, Georgia. 

Bartram, William 
1943 Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773-1774. Transactions 
of the American Philosophical Society 33 ( 2 ) : 1 2 1 -242 . 

Bennett, R. S. 

1960 Life on the English Manor: A Study of Peasant Condi- 
tions, 1150-1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Bidwell, Percy W. , and John I. Falconer 
1925 History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 
1 620- i860. Contributions to American Economic History 
No. 5. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution. 

Binford, Lewis R. 
1962a Archeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 29: 
217-225. 

1962b A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe- 
stem Samples. Southeastern Archeological Conference, 
Newsletter 9(1) : 19-21 . 

1972 'Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis 
in Historical Archeology ' --A Step Toward the Development 
of Archeological Science. The Conference on Historic Site 
Archeology Papers 1972 6:117-125. 

Bloch, Marc 

1968 Feudal Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 



296 



297 



Bonner, James C. 
1964 A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. Athens: 
University of Georgia Press. 

Bowen, Joanne 

1975 Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspec- 
tive of Zooarcheology and Agricultural History at Mott 
Farm Historical Archeology 9:11-25. 

Brown, Margaret Kimball 

1971 Glass from Fort Michilimackinac : A Classification for 
Eighteenth Century Glass. The Michigan Archeologist 
17(3-4). 

Brown, Richard M. 

1963 The South Carolina Regulators. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press. 

Bryant, Pat, ed. 

1972 English Crown Grants for Islands in Georgia, 1755-75. 
Atlanta: State Printer. 

Candler, Allen D. , ed. 
1904-1937 The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. 39 
vols. Atlanta: State Printer. Unpublished volumes (20,27- 
39) on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, 
University of Florida. 

Carson, Cary 

1978 Doing History With Material Culture. In Material Cul- 
ture and the Study of American Life. Ian M. G. Quimby, 
ed. pp. 41-64. New York: W. W. Norton. 

Cassagrande, Joseph B. , Stephen I. Thompson, and Phillip 
D. Young 

1964 Colonization as a Research Frontier. In Process 
and Pattern in Culture, Essays In Honor of Julian 

H. Steward. Robert A. Manners ed. pp. 281-325. 
Chicago: Aldine Press. 

Casteel, Richard W. 
1978 Faunal Assemblages and the "Weigemethode" or Weight 
Method. Journal of Field Archeology 5:72-77. 

Cate, Margaret Davis 
1926 Our Todays and Yesterdays. Brunswick: Glover Brothers. 

1943 Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh. Georgia 
Historical Quarterly 40:111-174. 

1956 The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The Hawkins- 
Davison Houses. Georgia Historical Quarterly 40 ( 3 ) : 203-2 1 2 . 



298 



1961 Notes on Robert Patterson. Margaret Davis Cate Collec- 
tion (microfilm), Fort Frederica National Monument, St. 
Simons Island, Georgia. 

Chance, David H. 
1977 Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, 
by Stanley South. Historical Archeology 11:126-128. 

Cleland, Charles E. 
1970 Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and 
British Refuse Pits at Fort Michil imackinac : A Study 
in Changing Subsistence Patterns. Canadian Historic 
Sites Occasional Papers in Archeology and History 3:8-23. 

Cleland, Charles E. and James E. Fitting 
1968 The Crisis of Identity: Theory in Historic Sites Arche- 
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 
1967 2(2) : 124-138. 

Coleman, Kenneth 
1972 The Southern Frontier: Georgia's Founding and the 

Expansion of South Carolina. Georgia Historical Quarterly 
56: 163-174. 

1976 Colonial Georgia: A History. New York: Charles Scribner 
and Sons. 

Cornwall, I. W. 

1958 Soils for the Archeologist . London: Phoenix House Ltd. 

Coulter, E. Merton and Albert B. Saye 
1949 A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia. Athens: 
University of Georgia Press. 

Cumbaa, Stephen L. 

1975 Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary 
Change in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. dissertation, 
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. 

Davis, Harold E. 

1976 The Fledgling Province: Social and Cultural Life in 
Colonial Georgia, 1733-1776. Chapel Hill: The University 
of North Carolina Press. 

Deagan, Kathleen A. 
1972 Pipe Stems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class 
in 18th Century Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service 
Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 

1975 Thirty Years of Archeology at Frederica, Georgia, 1945- 
1975: An Archeological Assessment. Manuscript, National 
Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 



299 



Deetz, James F. 

1967 Invitation to Archeology. Garden City, New York: 
Natural History Press. 

1974 A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material 
Culture: 1620-1835. In Reconstructing Complex Societies. 
Charlotte Moore, ed. pp. 21-24. 

1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Garden City, New York: 
Anchor Books. 

Dollar, Clyde D. 

1968 Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in Historical Arche- 
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 
1967 2(2):3-30. 

Dougenik, James A. and David E. Sheehan 

1975 SYMAP User's Reference Manual. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial 
Analysis . 

Egmont, John Percival 
1923 Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont Diary, Vol. 2, 173^- 
38. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office. 

Fairbanks, Charles H. 

1952 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Fort 
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 
Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons 
Island, Georgia. 

1953 Report of Excavations at Fort Frederica National Monu- 
ment, 1953. Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument, 
St. Simons Island, Georgia. 

1956 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses. Georgia 
Historical Quarterly 40:213-229. 

1977 Backyard Archeology as Research Strategy. The Confer- 
ence on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1976 1 1 (2) : 133-139- 

1978 Personal communication, January 14, 1978. 

1980 Personal communication, November 5, 1 9 80 . 

Fairbanks, Charles H. and Nicholas Honerkamp 
1978 Research Proposal for the Patterson Lot Excavation, 
Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, 
Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service Southeast 
Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 



300 



Flannery, Kent V. 

1973 Archeology With a Capital S. In Research and Theory 
in Current Archeology. Charles L. Redman, ed. pp. 47-53. 
New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Fontana, Bernard L. 
1965 The Tale of a Nail: On the Ethnological Interpreta- 
tion of Historic Artifacts. The Florida Anthropologist 
8:85-96. 

1968 A Reply to 'Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in His- 
torical Archeology. ' The Conference on Historic Site 
Archeology Papers 1967 2(2):75-78. 

Gannon, Michael 
1965 The Cross in the Sand. Gainesville: University of 
Florida Press. 

Genovese, Eugene D. 

1974 Roll Jordon Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New 
York: Pantheon Books. 

Gilbert, Allan S. , and Paul Steinfield 
1977 Faunal Remains from Dinka Tepe, Northwestern Iran. 
Journal of Field Archaeology U ( 3 ) : 329-35 1 . 

Glassie, Henry 

1968 Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern 
United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 
Press . 

1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Knoxville: Univer- 
sity of Tennessee Press. 

1977 Archeology and Folklore: Common Anxieties, Common 
Hopes. In Historical Archeology and the Importance of 
Material Things. Leland Ferguson, ed. pp. 23-35. Soci- 
ety for Historical Archeology, Special Publications Series 
No. 2. 

Gould, R.A. 

1971 The Archeologist as Ethnographer: A Case From the West- 
ern Desert of Australia. World Archeology 3 ( 2 ) : 1 43- 1 77 . 

Gray, Lewis 

1933 History of Agriculture in the Southern United States 
to i860. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution. 

Grayson, Donald K. 
1973 On the Methodolgy of Faunal Analysis. American Anti- 
quity 38:432-438. 



301 



Hamilton, T.M. 

1976 Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michi 1 imackinac , 
1715-1781. Reports in Mackinac History and Archeology, 

No. 5. 

Hanson, Lee and Dick Ping Hsu 
1975 Casemates and Cannonballs. Publications in Archeology 
No. 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Harrington, J.C. 
1955 Archeology as Auxiliary to American History. American 
Anthropologist 55:1121-1130. 

1979 The Importance of Interpretation in Historical Arche- 
ology. North American Archeologist 1(1): 75—84 . 

Harris, Marvin 

1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. New York: 
Random House. 

1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of 
Culture. New York: Random House. 

Harris, Marvin and Eric Ross 

1978 How Beef Became King. Psychology Today 12(5) : 88-94 • 

Heighton, Robert F. and Kathleen A. Deagan 
1972 A New Formula for Dating Kaolin Clay Pipestems. Con- 
ference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 6:220-229. 

Heizer, Robert F. and John A. Graham 
1967 A Guide to Field Methods in Archeology. Palo Alto: 
National Press. 

Helwig, Jane T. and Kathryn A. Council, eds. 

1979 SAS User's Guide, 1979 Edition. Raleigh: SAS Insti- 
tute. 

Hilliard, Sara B. 
1972 Hogmeat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 
1840-1860. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University 
Press . 

Honerkamp, Nicholas 
1975 The Material Culture of Fort Frederica: The Thomas 
Hird Lot. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Uni- 
versity of Florida. 

1977a Colonial Life on the Georgia Coast. St. Simons Island: 
Fort Frederica Association. 



1977b Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, by 
Stanley South. Florida Journal of Anthropology 2(2):33-34. 



302 



1980 Social Status as Reflected by Faunal Remains from an 
18th Century British Colonial Site. Conference on Historic 
Site Archeology Papers 1979, Stanley South ed. In press. 

Hoornbeck, Billie M. 
1980 Personal communication, January 10, 1980. 

Hudson, John C. 
1969 A Locational Theory for Rural Settlement. Annals of 
the Association of American Geograhers 59:365-381. 

Ivers, Larry E. 

1974 British Drums on the Southern Frontier: The Military 
Colonization of Georgia 1735-1749. Chapel Hill: University 
of North Carolina Press. 

Johnson, Sydney J., Hilburn 0. Hillestad, Sheryl F. Shanholtzer, 
and G. Frederick Shanholtzer 
1974 An Ecological Survey of the Coastal Region of Georgia. 
National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 3. 

Jones, Charles C. 
1878 The Dead Towns of Georgia. Printed as Volume 2 of the 
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. Savannah: 
Morning News Steam Printing. 

Kaplan, Reid W. and Michael D. Coe 
1977 Picture of the Past: Artifact Density and Computer 
Graphics. Historical Archeology 10:54-67. 

Kemble, Francis Anne 
1961 Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838- 
1839. Originally published 1 863 - New York: Alfred A. 
Knopf. 

Kristof, Ladis K. D. 
1959 The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries. Annals of the 
Association of American Geographers 49:269-282. 

Leone, Mark P. 
1973 Archeology as the Science of Technology: Morman 

Town Plans and Fences. In Research and Theory in Current 
Archeology. Charles Redman, ed. pp. 125-150. New York: 
John Wiley and Sons. 

Lewis, Kenneth E. 

1976 Camden: A Frontier Town. Institute of Archeology and 
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Anthropological 
Studies 2. 

1977 Sampling the Archeological Frontier: Regional Models 
and Component Analysis. In Research Strategies in Histor- 
ical Archeology, Stanley South, ed. pp. 151-201. New York: 
Academic Press. 



303 



Lorraine, Dessamae 
1968 An Archeologist ' s Guide to Nineteenth Century American 
Glass. Historical Archeology 2:35-44. 

Lovell, Caroline C. 
1932 The Golden Isles of Georgia. Boston: Little, Brown 
and Company. 

McNett, Charles W., Jr. 
1979 The Cross-Cul tural Method in Archeology. _In Advances 

in Archeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B. 

Schiffer, ed. pp. 39-76. New York: Academic Press. 

McPherson, Robert G. 
1962 Journal of the Earl of Egmont. Athens: University of 
Georgia Press. 

Manucy, Albert C. 
1960 Specifications for a Scale Model of the Town of Fred- 
erica in Georgia About 1742. Manuscript, Fort Frederica 
National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 

1962 The Fort at Frederica. Florida State University Notes 
in Anthropology, Vol. 5. 

Martin, E. 

1942 The Standard of Living in 1 860 - Chicago: University 
of Chicago Press. 

Miller, Henry M. 
1978 Pettus and Utopia: A Comparison of the Faunal Remains 
from Two Late Seventeenth Century Virginia Households. 
Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1978 
13:158-179. 

Miller, J. Jefferson III and Lyle M. Stone 
1970 Eighteenth Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac. 
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Miller, Joshua 

1796 Plan of the Town of Frederica on the Island of St. 
Simon. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St. 
Simons Island, Georgia. 

Moore, Francis 
1840 A voyage to Georgia, Begun in the Year 1735. I_n 
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, pp. 79- 
152. Boston: Freeman and Bolles. 

Moore, Jackson 

1958 Excavations on Cross Street. Manuscript, Fort Freder- 
ica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 



304 



Mountford, Arnold R. 
1971 The Illustrated Guide to Staffordshire Salt Glazed 
Stoneware. New York: Praeger Publishers. 

Nelson, Lee H. 

1963 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. 
History News 19:25-27. 

Nichols, Frederick D. 
1957 The Early Architecture of Georgia. Chapel Hill: Uni- 
versity of North Carolina Press. 

Noel Hume, Ivor 
1969a Historical Archeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 

1969b Glass in Colonial Williamsburg's Archeological Coll- 
ections. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 1. 

1971 Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archeological Evi- 
dence. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 6. 

1974 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: 
Alfred A. Knopf. 

Phillips Collection 
1947 Egmont Manuscripts: Letters from Georgia 1739-1744. 
Manuscript on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida 
History, University of Florida. 

Prange, Henry D. , John F. Anderson, and Herman Rahn 
1979 Scaling of Skeletal Body Mass in Birds and Mammals. 
American Naturalist 113:103-122. 

Rathje, William L. 
1977 In Praise of Archeology: Le Project du Garbage. 
In Historical Archeology and the Importance of Material 
Things. Leland Ferguson, ed. pp. 36-42. Society for 
Historical Archeology, Special Publication Series No. 2. 

1979 Modern Material Studies. In Advances in Archeological 
Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp. 
1-37. New York: Academic Press. 

Reese, Trevor R. 
1963 Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in 
the Eighteenth Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

1969 Frederica: Colonial Fort and Town. St. Simons Island: 
Fort Frederica Association. 



1973 The Clamorous Malcontents: Criticisms and Defenses of 
the Colony of Georgia, 1741-143. Savannah: Beehive Press. 



305 



Reitz, Elizabeth J. 

1979 Spanish and British Subsistence Strategies at St. 
Augustine, Florida and Frederica, Georgia Between 1565 and 
1783. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of Florida. 

1980 Faunal Analysis of Materials from the Eighteenth 
Century Occupation at the Francisco Ponce de Leon Site 
(SA36-4), St. Augustine, Florida. In Forgotten Places 
and Things: Archeological Perspectives on American 
History, A. E. Ward, ed. In press. Albuquerque: Center 
for Anthropological Studies. 

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Nicholas Honerkamp 
1980 The British Barnyard Complex in Colonial Georgia. 
Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of 
Florida . 

Reps, John W. 

1969 Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton: 
Princeton University Press. 

Rigdon, Thomas A. and Alfred J. Green 
1980 Soil Survey Report for Camden and Glynn Counties. Manu- 
script, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 
Service . 

Ross, Eric B. 

1980 Patterns of Diet and Forces of Production: An Economic 
and Ecological History of the Ascendency of Beef in the U.S. 
Diet. In Beyond the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural 
Materialism. Eric B. Ross, ed. In press. 

Saye, Albert B. 

1943 New Viewpoints in Georgia History. Athens: University 
of Georgia Press. 

Schiffer, Michael B. 
1972 Archeological Context and Systematic Context. American 
Antiquity 37: 156-165. 

1976 Behavioral Archeology. New York: Academic Press. 

1977 Toward a Unified Science of the Cultural Past. In 
Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. Stanley 
South, ed. pp. 13-40. New York: Academic Press. 

Schmidt, Elizabeth 
1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehi s tor ians , Archeologi s ts 
and Quaternary Geologists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. 



306 



Schuyler, Robert L. 

1977 The Written Word, the Spoken Word, Observed Behavior and 
Preserved Behavior: The Various Contexts Available to the 
Archeologist . Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 
1975 10(2) :99-120. 

1980 Review of Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, 
Stanley South ed. American Anthropologist 82:200-202. 

Schuyler, Robert L. , ed. 

1978 Historical Archeology: A Guide to Substantive and 
Theoretical Contributions. New York: Academic Press. 

Shapiro, Gary 

1978a Appendix 5. Early British Subsistence Strategy at 
Michilimackinac : An Analysis of Faunal Remains from 
the 1977 Excavation Season. In Excavations at Fort Michi- 
limackinac 1977: House 1 of the South Southeast Row House, 
by D. P. Heldman, pp. 161-177. Mackinac Island, Michigan: 
Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 

1978b Early British Subsistence Strategy at Michilimackinac: 
A Case Study in Systematic Particularism. Master's thesis, 
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. 

Shiner, Joel 

1958a The Colonial Houses of Broad Street. Manuscript, Fort 
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 

1958b The Excavation of Fort Frederica. Manuscript, Fort 
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 

Silver, I. A. 

1963 The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In Science in Arche- 
ology, edited by D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, pp. 250-268. 
New York: Praeger. 

Smith, Robin L. 
1978 An Archeological Survey of Kings Bay, Camden County, 
Georgia. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Univer- 
sity of Florida. 

South, Stanley 

1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis 
in Historical Archeology. Conference on Historic Site 
Archeology Papers 1972 6:71-116. 

1977a Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. New York: 
Academic Press. 

1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology: The 
Scientific Paradigm. In Research Strategies in Historical 
Archeology. Stanley South, ed. pp. 1-12. New York: 
Academic Press. 



307 



1978 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeology. American 
Antiquity 43:223-230. 

1979 Cognitive Explanation, Rich Little and Other 
Impressionistic Entertainment. Paper Presented at The 
Canadian Archaeological Association, Vancouver, B.C. 

South, Stanley, ed. 
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. New 
York: Academic Press. 

Stacy, James 

1784 Plat Map of Lots 22 and 23, Frederica, Surveyed for 
John Myers Sr. Box 17, Plats Folder, Hinesville Probate 
Court . 

Stevens, William Bacon 
1847 History of Georgia, Volume I. New York: E.O. Jenkins. 

Stone, Lyle M. 

1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. Publications of the 
Museum, Michigan State University. 

Taylor, Walter W. 
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir No. 69, American 
Anthropologist 50(2):1-256. 

Walker, Ian C. 

1967 Historic Archeology — Methods and Principles. Histor- 
ical Archeology 1:23-34. 

1974 Binford, Science and History: the Probabilistic 
Variability of Explicated Epistemology and Nomothetic 
Paradigms in Historical Archeology. The Conference on 
Historic Site Archeology Papers 1972 7(3) : 159-201 - 

Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman 
1971 Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific 
Approach. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Weigert, Hans W. , Henry Brodie, Edward W. Doherty, John R. 
Fernstrom, Eric Fischer and Dudley Kirk 
1957 Principles of Political Geography. New York: Appleton 
Press . 

White, Lynn Jr. 
1969 Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York: 
Oxford University Press. 

White, Stephen W. 

1975 On the Origin of Gunspalls. Historical Archeology 
9:65-73. 



308 



White, Theodore 
1953 A Method for Calculating the Dietary Percentages of 
Various Food Animals Used by Aboriginal Peoples. American 
Antiquity 18:396-398. 

Wilderson, Paul W. 

1975 Archeology and the American Historian: An Interdisi- 
plinary Challenge. American Quarterly 27 ( 2 ) : 1 1 5- 1 32 . 

Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips 
1958 Method and Theory in American Archeology. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press. 

Wing, Elizabeth S. 

1976 Ways of Going from a Sliver of Bone to a Calorie. 
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for 
American Archeology, St. Louis. 

Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antoinette B. Brown 
1979 Paleonutri tion : Method and Theory in Prehistoric 
Foodways. New York: Academic Press. 

Wood, Betty 

1979 A Note on the Georgia Malcontents. Georgia Historical 
Quarterly 63:264-278. 

Wood, W. Raymond and Donald Lee Johnson 
1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archeological 
Site Formation. In Advances in Archeological Method and 
Theory, Vol. 1. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp. 315-381. 
New York: Academic Press. 



Wright, Sir James 
1873 Report of Sir James Wright On the Condition of the 
Province of Georgia, On 20th Sept. 1773. In Collections 
of the Georgia Historical Society, Vol. 3, pp. 158-179. 
Savannah: Morning News Press. 



309 



APPENDIX A 
SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE 



Variable 


Description 


SQNUM 


Square number (1 - 63) 


PROV 


Provenience (Feature 1 - Feature 30) 


BLUDELF 


Blue on white delftware 


POLYDELF 


Polychrome painted delftware 


WITDELF 


Plain white delftware 


LEDGLAZ 


Lead glazed earthenware 


REDLED 


Red bodied lead glazed earthenware 


SIPDEC 


Decorated slipware 


SLIPLAN 


Undecorated slipware 


ASTBURY 


Astbury refined earthenware 


AGATE 


Refined Agateware 


MISCEARTH 


Miscellaneous earthenware 


WSGS 


White salt glazed stoneware 


MOLDSGS 


Molded salt glazed stoneware 


DIPSGS 


Slip dipped salt glazed stoneware 


RHENISH 


Rhenish salt glazed stoneware 


BROWNSG 


Brown salt glazed stoneware 


GRAYSGS 


Gray salt glazed stoneware 


CROUCHSG 


Crouchware salt glazed stoneware 


NOTTING 


Nottingham stoneware 


MISCSGS 


Miscellaneous salt glazed stoneware 


BLUPORC 


Blue on white Oriental porcelain 


POLYPORC 


Overglaze enamelled Oriental porcelain 


PLANPORC 


Plain white Oriental porcelain 


LATEPOT 


Creamware and later ceramics 



310 



SUMMARY OF PLQ»ZCNE CERAMICS. OGEREE 



2 1 1 

22 1 

23 1 



33 I 

2 4 1 

35 1 

36 1 

37 1 

38 1 

39 1 

40 1 



71 730 81 417 



388 204 1106 134 1 78 29 7 



105 25 (* 126 690 181 



106 
1 1 0 
43 

25 



SUMMARY OF FEATURE CERAMICS. 0G8REE SITE 



F 1 

F 1 0 
F I 1 
F 1 2 
F 1 3 
F 1 4 
F 1 e 
F 16 
F 1 7 
Fl 8 
Fl* 
F 2 
F20 
F23 
F24 
F 25 
F26 
F 27 
F29 
F 3 



IC8 
31 
1 0 



180 
23 
1 <5 



58 3< 173 383 33 71 



P P 

O 0 

R R 

C C 



193 

22 
2 ? 



311 



APPENDIX B 

SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL ARTIFACTS 



DOBREE SITE 



Variable 

SQNUM 
PROV 

WINEBOTL 
CASEBOTL 
VIAL 

TABLGLAS 

GOBLET 

WINDOW 

MODERN 

OTHER 

STEM4 

STEM5 

STEM6 

UIDSTEM 

PLANBOWL 

DECBOWL 

WROUGHT 

CUT 

SQUARE 
ROUND 



Description 

Square number (1 - 63) 
Provenience (Feature 1 - Feature 30) 
Dark green bottle glass (round sectioned) 
Dark green bottle glass (square sectioned) 
Pharmaceutical bottle glass 

Tumbler, engraved, and clear round sectioned 
bottle glass 
Clear goblet glass 
Window glass 
Postcolonial glass 
Unidentified glass 
White clay pipestem, 
White clay pipestem, 
White clay pipestem, 
White clay pipestem, 
Plain bowl fragment, 



4/64 inch bore 
5/64 inch bore 
6/64 inch bore 
unknown bore 
white clav pipe 



Decorated bowl fragment, white clay pipe 
Wrought iron nail 
Cut iron nail 

Square sectioned iron nail 
Round sectioned iron nail 



312 



SUMMAPV OF GLASS. PIPH. A NO NAIL ARTIFACTS. PLOWZONE . 0O8PEE SITE 





2 e i 


4919 


32 02 


4 78 


66 


2 90 


3968 43 


10 72 


2 0 52 


■5 78 


3 3 


194 1293 


1 25 


1207 


1 0 1 


2695 


2 t 5 


i i 


2 


45 


9 5 


9 


2 


2 


5 


28 




5 


0 


0 8 


0 


10 


2 


24 


6 






* 7 




2 




2 


6 


1 2 


1 c 


5 


o 


4 12 


1 




3 0 


39 


3 


3 i 


2 


1 J 


1 <; 


[ 


0 


2 


4 66 13 


1 6 


4 


0 




1 6 


0 


2 


4 


1 7 


2 






i e 2 


6 e 


7 


0 


7 


16 1 1 


19 




29 


1 




15 


0 


£2 


0 


6 8 


4 


* i 




1 1 8 


68 


7 




3 


31 2! 


54 


1 0 


29 


0 


0 12 




36 


1 


e e 


3 


6 1 


" 


16 2 


1 3 7 


] 7 


0 


* 


22 ( 


9 


1 4 


26 


0 


3 27 


0 


1 | 


1 


7 5 


7 






1 46 


5 3 








IS t 


20 


I 4 


1 0 




2 25 


o 


2 


o 


3 e 


3 


e i 


2 




6 4 


' 4 


0 


6 


ie 2< 


24 


2 7 


5 


0 


3 1 7 


1 


7 


3 


3 4 


7 


9 i 


6 


5 1 


3e 


1 4 


3 


2 


2 1 ( 


14 


7 7 


1 3 


1 


S 30 


4 


1 7 


1 


4 7 


2 


10 1 




75 


4 6 


1 3 


1 2 




9 


18 


1 1 5 


26 


0 


14 49 


2 


1 1 


4 


4 7 


1 


J i J 




2 79 


2 2 C 




0 




25 : 


64 


26 


28 


o 


3 23 


3 


35 


1 


59 


0 




5 


1 87 


I 8 1 


1 4 


' 


2 


26 


40 


2 0 


3 s 


o 


3 21 




1 7 


2 


4 7 


3 


i ' l 






1 0 2 


7 




0 


18 C 


27 


I 4 


1 6 


o 


2 17 


2 




0 


3 0 




1 4 1 


J 


80 


7 0 


7 


0 


3 


IS 


37 


32 


1 8 


0 


4 14 


1 


9 


0 


4 2 


7 


15 1 


7 


1 2 1 


1 2 2 


26 


0 


1 1 


35 


1 8 


79 


36 


1 


f 62 


e 


28 


3 


48 


3 


1 6 1 


7 


7 2 


6 7 


1 2 


3 


6 


26 ( 


8 


1 05 


29 


0 


7 59 


7 


■ 4 


1 


; 4 


1 7 


17 J 


[ 1 


66 


2 8 


1 8 


3 


5 


10 i 


3 


1 3 2 


2 3 


0 


10 46 


3 


70 


1 


72 


s 


1 8 1 


5 


49 


3 4 


a 


2 


9 


7 : 


26 


1 46 


26 




22 49 


2 


7 


0 


70 


3 




f 




1 f 






? 


6 


1 2 


34 


6 


o 


6 26 




o 




1 6 


2 


2 0 1 




60 




3 






0 < 


1 I 


1 5 




o 


2 € 


0 


3 


0 




I 






I 4 4 


I 2 2 






g 


19 3 


2 1 


20 


2 2 


? 


4 3 




I 3 




6 6 




2 2 1 


5 


1 0 1 


6 7 


1 3 




8 


4e < 


a 


I 7 


26 




« 27 


5 


25 


o 


46 


{ 


2 3 1 


2 


1 26 


5 5 


7 




5 


59 C 


13 


4 1 


34 


o 


3 29 


3 


I 5 


a 


66 


2 


2 4 1 


5 


1 4 1 




| 5 




5 


22 ! 


20 


9 I 


39 


o 


5 36 


2 


1 1 4 


3 


33 


0 


25 1 




5 3 


c ^ 


1 2 




7 


31 ( 


6 


1 9 1 


40 


1 


e 36 


6 


81 


o 


1 06 






i 








L 


? 


8 1 C 


0 






i 


2 6 


i 




1 i 


* ? 




2 7 1 




6 0 


2 3 


g 






1 7 < 


2 


go 


1 2 




4 24 




1 25 










- 


1 59 


6 3 


1 0 






426 


20 


c 1 


\ % 


. 

1 


3 39 






. 


1 6 0 




?9 1 


| 


7 7 






0 




38 C 


13 


j r 






3 1 2 




40 








30 1 






7 4 








164 


20 


3 0 


_ „ 


z. 


3 51 








12 2 


3^ 


3 1 1 




1 6 4 


5 5 


I 2 




1 8 


294 : 


29 


i 2 


49 


0 


6 77 


7 






12 1 


1 7 




~ 






1 ? 






54 4 


7 








3 30 










* 


3 3 I 




1 0 7 


9 4 








241 I C 


38 


40 


2 1 


1 


4 26 


^ 


*^ 




13 2 




34 1 


4 


24 


1 9 


4 


i 


0 


18 


0 


66 


1 4 


2 


3 7 


0 


44 


2 


4 3 


1 


35 1 


5 


48 


4 6 


3 


0 


4 


5 1 ' 


0 


43 


1 2 


0 




12 


2 


1 32 




68 


4 


36 1 


8 


55 


2 7 


7 


3 




19 17 0 


20 


1 1 


0 




13 


2 


7e 




4 7 


0 


37 1 




5 3 


7 2 


9 


3 




32 3 : 


I 5 


7 


8 


0 


2 9 


0 


2 1 




9 1 


2 


38 1 


3 


27 


8 


2 


1 


0 


39 1 


2 


6 


3 


0 


1 5 


1 


2 


0 


33 




39 1 




56 


56 


7 


1 


3 1 


81 15 14 


35 


1 9 


0 


2 20 


5 


2 04 


0 


79 


8 


40 1 


a 


J7 


3e 




0 


1 2 


24 


6 


29 


1 6 


0 


3 1 7 




es 


8 


159 


7 


4 1 1 


j 


23 


30 


9 




2 


25 




27 


1 4 


0 


4 9 


2 


1 03 


0 


1 5 4 


0 






36 


4 e 


3 


I 


0 


40 C 5 


9 


6 


0 




18 


0 


39 


0 


68 


0 


4 3 1 


4 


1 0 5 


6 S 


I 0 


0 


4 


648 


I 06 


e 


8 


0 


2 1 1 


2 


44 


3 


131 


0 


44 1 


2 


79 


4 3 


1 4 


□ 


0 


221 0 18 


9 


1 2 


0 


2 e 




26 


0 


7e 


0 


45 1 


6 


99 


1 3 4 


1 0 


0 


9 


109 0 35 


1 6 


1 3 


0 


2 32 


3 


1 08 


0 


154 


6 


46 1 


7 


1 22 


1 0 9 


6 


2 


8 


147 0 28 


1 2 


6 


0 


e 45 


3 


57 


1 


99 


35 


4 7 1 


2 


I 5 


3 0 


0 


0 




32 9 8 


1 6 


3 


0 


0 1 3 




4 2 


0 


95 


9 


48 1 




70 


i : 


3 


0 


3 


3 


1 8 


4 


4 


0 


0 7 




0 




1 6 


I 


49 I 


2 


78 


3 3 


5 


0 


I 


123 2 18 


7 


8 


0 


2 1 0 


1 


6 


3 


39 


0 


50 1 




E 1 


7 C 


1 0 


0 




115 4 48 


I 4 


1 9 


0 


2 27 




49 


0 


62 


1 


5 1 1 


5 




3 7 


6 


0 


6 


1 1 4 


8 


1 0 


I 8 


0 


0 29 


0 


1 5 


0 


23 


30 


5 2 I 




65 


3 0 


1 


3 


1 


114 3 




5 


0 


0 2 


0 


6 


0 


4 4 


0 


5 3 1 


5 


38 


1 S 


2 


0 


0 


17 12 5 


6 


1 0 


0 


2 9 


2 


1 1 


I 


30 


0 


54 1 


3 


2 0 


6 


0 


1 


5 


2 14 0 




3 




2 4 


0 




0 


3 


0 






JO 


2 


1 


3 


3 


4 26 0 


1 


4 


0 


0 2 


1 


1 


0 


4 




56 1 


4 


:)6 


2 t 


0 


3 




0 24 5 


3 


2 


0 


0 1 


0 


7 


0 


6 


0 


57 1 


J 


33 


s 


0 


0 


1 


0 4 5 


4 


4 


0 


( 


1 






0 




0 


58 1 


J 


16 




0 


a 


0 


4 C 7 


5 


J 


3 


C 


4 


0 


0 


1 


I 7 


7 


59 1 




18 


3 


4 


3 


1 


6 4 2 


2 


2 


0 






3 


3 


0 


7 


0 


( 0 I 


2 


Jfl 


1 6 


4 


3 


2 


17 0 11 


8 


5 


0 




1 s 


2 


C 


0 


1 c 


0 


e i i 


7 


3 8 


1 3 


3 


0 


1 5 


5 2 i 24 


1 7 


5 


3 




1 2 




1 4 


0 


3 7 


0 


62 1 


2 


J7 


4 


2 


3 


J 


1 I £ 15 


1 




1 






0 


0 


4 


1 1 


1 4 


f 3 1 


3 


4 4 


e 




7 


9 


15 1 C 19 


5 


1 


0 






0 


0 


1 




1 0 



313 



;UiM»fY CF GLASS. PIPE. 4NO NAIL ARTIFACTS. FEATURES. OOBPEE SITE 



0 <53 864 604 375 63 39 367 0 18 4<5 161 S 54 444 50 736 0 11S4 1 



F 1 7 

r 18 
F 1 9 
F 2 
F 20 
F 2 1 

f :z 

F2 3 



72 f2 26 2e S5 0 6 2 03 63 2 25 179 20 
27 90 2t 38 77 0 0 15 t 1 5 18 1 



0 0 0 0 0 
101 1 0 0 13 

0 62 0 0 18 



314 



APPENDIX C 

SUMMARY OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE 



Variable 


Description 


SQNUM 


Square number (1 - 63) 


PROV 


Provenience (Feature 1 - Feature 30) 


GRAYDEB 


Gray flint debitage 


GRAYGUN 


Gray gunflint 


GOLDEB 


Honey colored flint debitage 


GOLDGUN 


Honey colored gunflint 


UIDFLINT 


Unidentified flint 


MSKTBALL 


Lead musketball, shot 


L BLOB 


Lead blob 


L OTHER 


Miscellaneous lead artifacts 


L UID 


Unidentified lead fragments 


BRASBUCK 


Brass buckles 


B BUTTON 


Brass buttons 


B MSKT 


Brass musket parts 


B OTHER 


Miscellaneous brass artifacts 


B UID 


Uidentified brass fragments 


IRONBUCK 


Iron buckles 


I STRAP 


Iron barrel hoop fragments 


I MSKT 


Iron musket parts 


I OTHER 


Miscellaneous iron artifacts 


I UIDWT 


Unidentified iron fragment weight (grams) 


BONEGRAM 


Bone weight (grams) 


BRICKLIT 


Brick and tabby volume (liters) 


SHELLIT 


Shell volume (liters) 


SLAGGRAM 


Slag weight (grams) 


CLINKER 


Clinker fragments 


COAL 


Coal fragments 


FLORAL 


Edible plant remains 


MISC 


Miscellaneous artifacts 



315 



li. _lO ff < _J »ooo— oo— oooooooooooooooooooooo^ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
co>«io->«io«i(Mnooe«Na9oriOx •■» • • • »o — cc** '«<i«o • ir>*i»i — cm.o — r>*o* — >-o • • > «o «o .00 
9 N — — -c cm — ioocm O oj«"> — m <M 

uo<j a> ■" — <m — nm 



- «(/)*»- 
- i«n-a«a 

IU £ O — i 

(T IO * UJ ff 

a m tx i/> * w 

B 
□ 

uj oq:<wo3uk 

0 

j u-u 

* 

o 
J 

a j 10 >- 1 uj a 

1 * w a: < _j _i 
a: 3-ou-zi- 
— oojau:z 
a - " j cu ^ 

UJ 

^ oa « v o 3 j: 



♦ oioOo»Nn<iNoo«innn»«»oo »k) •«> • • •eeast • <mc>o"» •oonNOji^nOf.NinNO • • • «o «o «oo 
cm * mco — — — - - 

t> «i 0 t- — — <o cc o « o xo " — 00 t> » O ru nnw«o 0000 »«««n««««ee-i(i? « m 00 



>iiiii««i o — cd — «Ni>«riffnKgfc«rn/N . n 

Kino « «o« «i « «i cm cm or- — — 



-CM 



I J«UOS<I « 



ioni)Ntii->»K«oo • 



noooooooooooooon 0000 o o 00000 00 0000000000000 o o 00 

ON«IVM)iOON*ON'-(Mf)0 NSnN CM CM — OOOO O •' F1cv,iu<V.0>««"l»>«"- , «»-O — O CM CM 

» e> CM — CM 

9ahN«ncnKOanngiK«oN»oonMii<i<iivin««no0*nii 
o * « 9<o<ooKin9a)r>«inri«>o«oin<o<o*«o«9«>o<o — m«o«i 
<\i — cm - — — cm cv— *«m in CM « l»l — — CM 

OaNN«nN<iaiiin«g>N«oieo«N«noi>o«ioinoN«iSM«eoon«iou(4iniuiAv><ino-<«ii)nuioi(iiriov>o»ono 

C««in«N"-n»C<«lll«»l(l»«*«lff>On-««lin*KH<)««lflSC>(^CVlJ««-«NS-<)ri«!C\|-t,N«,(>rj«lIlUJJU«.v- 

*i-e--»11--n<!N. — lONOon-m- r. « » Nm«l flid » 'in - ullDXCM «i » «i o« o - *« — — — 

n — — — — 

10NnONICln«<M--ooOo0000001MOO 

-o-o-oooo-oooouo«ni\jooD-o-«m«-ooo' , i-non-' , iown-oooQivooQoooooaDao"ooo 
m 

O O — OOOO— OOOOOOO— »CMOOOOOOCMOOOOO— O — * CM — O O — OOulOnj- — 0000000000 — oocoooc 

r» cm — 

r>t — — oooooooo— — oooocmoooooo — CM o 00 00 — 000 — ooocmoouooooooocjoooocjooooooocj 
• s«iai« — «MMNM>iv-inNNi>no — in«o.oeoo-ooooaoo-a 

o — — 00 — OOOO — — o— op-ioo — — — oooono-- 000 — — « o o — o — — — — — — <*i — — oomoo. ooooc-oooc 

* o — 0000000 — 0000 — o — ooooocmo — — nog- * — ooooocmooooooo — 000 — 0000000000000 
(Mo — oooooooiori — — o — cm o — o cm cm o o — o — — cmocm — 000 — (Ufim«ooonin«- 000 — 00000000 — oo — o 

(MOOO — O — CMCMOOCM — — O— niOCM— OCMCM— — — inCM — — if)— CMinOriCMCMl/)— CM— O — 1UCMOO — — OO — OCMOOCM— OCJOUO 

o 

U> — — CMOOFICMItCMf-IOflCM — fj* — * — CM CM CM— in — — OO— — — — D CM CM <U — *tno»*o — — »mOO — — CM-COCMOOO 

■OOOO — OOOOOOO— — OOOOOOOOOOO — OOOOOOCMOOo — OUIOO — OOOOO— OOOOO — OOOOO— OO^O 

moo — 000000 — oooo* — >n — ooor> — noocMOCMocM — o — en — — **o — 0© — o*cmoocmcmoooooooo — 0— © 

.noo-Oin«Nn-«nn-«oiio.u-o03"i«oo 

«OOONOO«lnOI»«00«l»-0«0««|«l««OOOOi«-«Oi50-ieBOOO-(MM«l , loOO'l--oOOmOOOOmO; 

S CM — CM 

*o<->— <moooo — n — — 00 — — cmooo — — — — 0 — ooomo — oooocmcmo — — — o— o»mooo — oooooooooo — uo 

CIOCM— — — — OOO — — — — mOCMCMOOOCM — — OOOOO — O — OOO — OOC'OOOOClOroiMOOdOOOOOOOO — OOOO — 

LTOCM— CM — — O — CMOOOOO— CM* — OOOO — CMO — * O © O — O — O — OOOOOCMOO — — OOCMOO — o — oowooo — — 00 

.*-CJC*CDU1^CtJ — in — — .o*rM — ***C*f»Ov0ir>*©OCM(\l«OOOl">OCM — O — — — -»IMCM 
(V, — AJ * — — f-m CM — — CM— CM — — — — — 

OCM'»cMC^*(r*'Mr»infn^*!ncBc>nu^ncMCM*n\0©*f fc n!/}!rif*rw©inuicot^ 



iinininuiinmu.'C'OJj'C 



316 



SUMMARY OF NONCERAXIC ARTIFACTS. FEATURES. OOBREE SITE 



























5 










1 










g 






- 
















5* 






_ 


















p 




p 


1 




[ 


1 


Q 


B 


s 




c 




















j* 
~ 




* 










= 












1 








1 










F 






- 


- 


* 




J* 










- 






2 


— 






N 


■= 


— 


Q 


T" 








Q 


'l 
















■ 




*: 




~ 


- 






p 






- 




p 






J 


1 












c 




M 














- 








[2 


- 












2 


p 






_ 


p 






p 






p 


I 












_ 






L 
























_ 






i 


i 




_ 










— 


— 






■j 
0 


N 


T 


L 








j 














- 


g 




y 
































' 












7 




i 




„ 




4 4 


4263 _ 




S 1 a 

, E 




709 3 1 


? 




_ 


f 








- 




~ 


■ 


1 5 








4 


7 




.j 


1 fl 






2(1 




2 


1 3CI ' P 


*_ 






14 1 


2 






? 


F 1 














1 


n 








i 


* 




2 


2 




3 


2 




1 "4 * Q 


~ 17C * 4 


" 




2 8 7 7 




2 


2 


2 


P , , 




* 










*j 




Jr 


J: 






2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


jf 
2 


2 






0 « 


2 


2 


CO 


2 


i 


2 


2 


PIP 












* 




' 








!: 










2 


2 


2 






I 105 i 


2 


? 


o *o 






2 


j! 


C 1 1 


j 












j* 
2 










2, 


2 


!j 


2 


' 






' 




2 * 7 


1 C 7 






7B * 1 


* 


2 


2 


2 


C 1 4 


• 






J; 








J* 




^ 

J: 






2 






2 


c 

2 


. 






. *p 


16*0 




5 


1 i* J 


2 




2 


' 






J 


1 


* 




•J 
■j 






? 








2 




z. 


2 


2 


? 


!* 


2 


■>l 3 


n r 
0. c 




2 








2 




C 1 c 


J 


1 


a 












~ 


1* 




~ 


° 










j 






11 A 












* 






F 1 T 


j 










J 










J 






0 




g 










6 *5 


150 * ^ 




j 


0 0 










F 1 a 


1 


j 


2 


0 


0 


0 


0 


J 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


J 


0 


2 


12 . 6 


<30. 4 


0 


0 


0.0 


o 


0 


3 


0 


F 1 ? 








0 


0 


c 




1 


0 


0 


1 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


1 


0 


0 


21 .0 


7.5 


0 


0 


192 .0 


a 


I 7 


0 


1 


F 2 


1 




73 


4 


2 


I 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


4 


1 


1 


0 


0 


4 


2 


1 


7 


2C0.4 


1369.0 


0 


0 


4.8 


0 


0 


1 1 


2 


F 20 


1 




0 


c 


0 


c 


0 


3 


0 


2 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


2 


21 .5 


160.1 


0 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 


0 


2 


F 2 1 


1 




0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


32.1 


0.0 


0 


1 


0 .0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F22 


1 




9 


0 


0 


0 


0 


a 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


13.4 


46.2 


1 5 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 


0 


3 


F22 


1 




0 


0 


0 


1 


0 


0 


1 


0 


0 


0 


c 


0 




0 


0 


0 


1 


0 


0.0 


10.1 


7 


0 


23.0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F24 






0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


c 


1 


0 


0 


13.0 


«;s. 7 


1 0 


1 


1 AS .0 


0 


2 


0 


0 


F 25 


1 




0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


1 


0 


1.0 


4.3 


t 


0 


1.0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F 26 


1 




0 


0 


0 


c 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 




0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0.0 


12.2 


0 


0 


0 .0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F2 7 


1 




0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


1 .0 


0.2 


1 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F 2 3 


1 




0 


0 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0.0 


407.3 


0 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F 2 9 


1 


24 


36 


2 


1 




i e 


5 




1 


3 


1 




3 


3 


7 


I 


0 


1 


4 


1300. 1 


1 776.6 


42 


0 


6128.7 


t 00 


271 


5 


1 


F 3 


1 




2 


1 


1 


1 


0 


2 


4 


2 






0 


0 


3 


3 




2 


0 


4 


226. 1 


1 209.6 


1 1 


1 4 


12.4 


0 


0 


0 


6 


F 30 


1 




4 


c 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


8.6 


73. e 


c 


0 


0.5 


0 


0 


0 


0 


P 4 


1 




7 


0 


0 


I 


0 


0 


5 


0 


0 


1 




0 


0 


0 


0 


3 


0 


2 


161.0 


3102.5 


3 


36 


0.0 


0 


0 


1 


0 


F 5 


1 




3 


c 


0 


0 


0 


3 


0 


0 




0 


a 


0 


I 


0 


0 


0 


0 


6 


120.3 


1272.7 


4 


1 0 


0. c 


0 


0 


2 


0 




I 




1 


0 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


15.1 


44 .4 


0 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


F 7 


1 




a 


0 


J 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


c 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0.3 


3C2 


0 


0 


0.0 


0 


0 




0 


f e 


1 




0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 .0 


1.2 


0 


0 


0 .0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


r i 








0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 




0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


1 1<J. 0 


i 051 .e 


1 


0 


t 1 .0 


0 


0 


0 


0 



317 



APPENDIX D 
SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE 



Variable 



Description 



FEANUM 
SPECNUM 



COUNT 

GWEIGHT 

SKLTOOTH 

FOOTPAT 

FORLIMB 

VERTEBRA 

STRNSCAP 

INOMSACR 

HINDLIMB 

RIBS 

T_SHELL 

FISH1 

FISH2 



Feature number 

Species number: ( 1 )Unidentif ied bone 
(2)Mammal ( 3 ) Procyon lotor ( 4 ) Didelphis 
marsupialis ( 5 ) Sylvilagus sp. ( 6 ) SylvTTagus 
cf. palustris ( 7 ) Canis sp . ( 8 ) Fel is sp. 
(9) Equus cabellus ( 1 0 ) Art iodactyl (11) Bos 
taurus (12) Sus scrofa (13)cf. Odocoileus 
y irginianus ( 1 4 ) Odoco ileus virginianus 
( 1 5 ) Capra or Ovis sp. ( 1 6) 0vis aries 
( 17)Unidentif ied bird (I8)cf. Branta 
canadensis (19)Anatidae (20) Anas sp. 
(21 ) Aytha~ sp. (22)Aix sponsa (23)cf. Gallus 
gallus (24) Gallus gallus ( 25 ) Unidenti f ied 
reptile ( 26 ) All Igator mississipiensis 
(27)Unidentif ied turtle (28) Kinosternum sp. 
( 29 ) Terrapene Carolina ( 30 ) Malaclemys 
terrapin ( 3 1 ) of « Crysemys scr ipta 
( 32 ) Crysemys scripta (33)cf. Gopherus 
polyphemus ( 34 ) Gopherus polyphemus 



(35)Colubridae (36) Rana or Bufo sp. 
( 37) Carcharinus sp. ( 38 )Uidenti f ied fish 
(39)Siluriformes (40)Arridae (4l)Arius 
fel is ( 42 ) Bagre mar inus ( 43 ) Archosargus 
probatocephalus ( 44 ) Schianidae ( 4 5 ) c f . 
Pogonius cromis ( 46 ) Pogoriius cromis 
( 47 ) Scianops ocellata (48) Mugil sp. 
( 4 9 ) Menip_p_e mercenar ius 
Bone frequency 
Bone weight (grams) 
Skull and tooth fragments 
Foot, patella, and calcaneum fragments 
Forelimb fragments 
Vertebral fragments 
Sternum and scapula fragments 
Innominate and sacrum fragments 
Hindlimb fragments 
Rib fragments 
Turtle carapace fragments 
Anterior fish skull fragments 
Posterior fish skull fragments 



318 



SUMMARY OF FAUNAL OA TA BY SPEC IE S— FEATURES* OOBREE SITE 

















S 






V 


S 


■ 
















S 








G 


K 


F 


F 


E 


T 




I 












F 


P 








■ 


L 


0 


0 


R 


R 


0 


H 












e 


E 


T 


F 


C 


E 


T 


0 


R 


T 


N 


M 


0 




5 








A 


C 


Y 


R 


O 


I 


0 


T 


L 


E 


S 


s 


L 




J* 






0 


N 


N 


P 


E 


u 


G 


0 


P 


I 


B 


c 


A 


I 


I 


E 


S 


S 


B 


U 


u 


E 


0 


N 


H 


T 


A 


M 


R 


A 


C 


M 


8 


L 






S 


M 


M 


_ 


_ 


T 


T 


H 


T 


8 


A 


p 


R 


8 


S 


L 


■ 


2 


1 


• 


• 


0 


S5 1 


7282 


1 5982* 5 


202 


1 13 


10 7 


1 78 


24 


29 


73 


5 1 


48 


110 




2 




1 


1 


87 


• 


963*8 


• 


• 


• 










• 


• 


• 


• 


3 


• 


2 


1 


90 


483 1 


5933*2 


• 




. 


. 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


4 


• 


3 


1 


1 3 


39 


36* 1 


10 


1 3 


1 0 


1 




4 


1 


• 


• 


• 


• 


5 


• 


4 


I 


4 


1 0 


7*9 


2 


• 


1 


6 




. 




• 


• 


• 


• 


b 


• 


5 


I 




1 


0* 5 


1 


• 


. 


• 






. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


7 


• 


6 


1 


I 


1 


0 *4 


. 




1 










• 


• 


• 


• 


8 


• 


7 


I 


1 


2 


0*5 


2 


• 


• 




. 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


9 


• 


8 


1 


1 


40 


10* 8 


5 


3 


4 


1 4 


2 


4 


6 


2 


• 


• 


• 


1 0 


• 


9 


1 


2 


4 


235*4 


3 


. 


• 


* 


• 


• 


1 


. 


• 


• 


• 


1 1 


• 


10 


I 


1 4 


2 0 


77*0 


2 


1 3 


. 


7 


2 


2 


. 


2 


• 


• 


• 


1 2 


• 


1 1 




50 


248 


7220* 2 


29 


39 


53 


42 


7 


1 1 


2 1 


46 


• 


• 


• 


1 3 


• 


1 2 


1 


42 


151 


630* 6 


96 


1 4 


1 3 


4 


4 


5 


1 4 


1 


• 


• 


• 


1 4 


• 


13 


1 


2 


2 


2*0 




1 


. 


. 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


I 5 


• 


14 


1 


30 


87 


405*5 


25 


23 


1 4 


3 


4 




1 7 


• 


• 


• 


• 


1 6 


• 


15 


I 


2 


2 


1*1 


• 


1 




• 


. 


• 


1 


• 


• 


• 


• 


t 7 


• 


16 




1 


3 


1 5* 4 


• 


2 




• 




• 


1 


• 


• 


• 


• 


I 8 


» 


I 7 


1 


29 


8 1 


24 *8 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


1 9 


• 


1 8 




1 


1 


0*1 


• 


• 


1 


• 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


2 0 


• 


19 


• 


2 


3 


0* 8 


• 


• 


. 


• 


1 


• 


2 


• 


• 


• 


• 


21 


• 


20 


I 


3 


3 


1 *9 


• 


• 


2 


• 


1 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


22 


• 


21 


1 


1 




0* 8 


• 


• 


1 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


23 


• 


22 


1 


1 


2 


0 *4 


• 




. 


• 




• 


1 


• 


• 


• 


• 


24 


• 


23 




1 


1 


0*2 


• 


• 


. 


• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


25 


• 


24 


1 


8 


1 8 


1 0*3 


• 




6 


• 


3 




5 


• 


• 


• 


• 


26 


• 


25 


1 


1 


1 


0*2 


• 


• 


. 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


27 


• 


26 


I 


1 


1 


9*7 


1 


• 




• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


28 


• 


2 7 


I 


I 3 


35 


14* 4 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


34 


• 


• 


29 


• 


28 


1 


I 


1 


1*4 


• 


• 




• 




• 




• 


1 


• 


• 


30 


• 


29 


1 


1 


1 


2*3 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


. 


• 


1 


• 


• 


3 1 


• 


30 




4 


8 


3 *3 


• 


• 




• 




• 


1 


• 


7 


• 


• 


32 


• 


3 1 




1 


1 


0*5 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


1 


• 


• 


• 


• 


33 


• 


32 


I 


1 


1 


1*5 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


. 


• 


1 


• 


• 


34 


• 


33 


1 


2 


2 


2*8 








• 








• 


2 


• 


• 


38 


• 


34 


1 


1 


1 


0*3 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 




• 


1 


• 


• 


36 


• 


35 


I 


3 


3 


0* 5 




* 


• 


• 




• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


3 7 


• 


36 


' 


2 


9 


0*3 


• 


• 




• 




• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


38 


• 


3 7 




2 


2 


0* 4 


• 


• 


• 


2 




• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


39 


• 


38 


1 


45 


I 3*7 


1 65* 7 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


40 


• 


39 




t 1 


61 


4*6 


1 


• 




59 




• 






• 




• 


4 1 


• 


40 


• 


9 


26 


3*7 


1 4 


• 


• 


3 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


9 


4 2 


• 


4 I 




1 1 


9 1 


34*5 


» 


• 


• 


5 




• 




• 


• 


34 


4 5 


4 3 


• 


4 2 




7 


3* 


11*5 


1 


• 


• 


2 




• 


• 


• 


• 


20 


1 1 


4 4 


• 


4 3 


1 


1 


1 


0* 6 


• 


• 


• 


1 




• 




• 


• 


• 


• 


45 


• 


4 4 


• 


1 0 


1 1 


10*3 




• 


• 


7 




• 


• 


• 


• 




• 


46 


* 


4 5 


\ 


1 


1 


0*9 


• 


• 


• 


• 




• 




• 


• 






4 7 




46 




9 


2 2 


41*3 








3 












1 5 




48 




47 




19 


49 


87*8 








12 












32 


4 


49 




48 




8 


13 


1*2 






. 


7 


• 










5 


• 


50 




49 






1 


3*1 






1 


. 


• 




• 






• 


• 


« 1 


1 




2 


165 


1543 


3425.4 


40 


13 


32 


26 


6 




25 


5 




2 1 


4 


52 


2 




2 


16 


9 20 


1369* 0 




I 


4 


1 


3 




I 


2 


18 


1 


• 


53 


3 




2 


51 


478 


1210.9 


21 


5 


7 


27 


4 




I m 


1 5 


7 


6 


1 


54 


4 




2 


34 


91 3 


3102.5 


39 


13 


22 


21 


3 




6 


1 5 


6 


1 1 


1 4 


55 


5 




2 


46 


94 7 


1272. 7 


: i 


1 1 


e 


63 


2 




1 


6 


2 


55 


4 7 


56 


6 




2 


1 I 


48 


44.4 




1 


• 


• 






. 




1 




1 


57 


7 




2 


t 1 


83 


38.2 




4 


l 


2 






2 




1 






58 


8 




2 


2 


3 


1.2 
















• 


• 






59 


9 




2 


9 


1 03 


1051 .8 




12 


9 


5 


• 


5 


5 


1 








60 


10 




2 


25 


20 1 


4 79.4 


a 


1 


3 


2 




3 


3 




*l 


• 




6 I 


1 1 




2 


2 


1 



























319 



SUMMARY OF F AUNAL OAT A BY SPEC 

















s 






y 


s 


I 


H 


















_ 


ft 




X 




I 




F 


p 








* 


L 


n 


Q 




p 


o 


















j 




P 


T 


N 


M 


o 












Q 


I 


Q 


- 


L 




s 


s 


L 






** 


p 








g 


p 


{ 


g 




A 


I 
















j 






p 


A 


r 




g 




M 


— 


— 




j 




_ 


g 


A 


p 


p 


g 






* 




1 8 


2 8 6 


1 1 OS* 8 


5 




1 


1 i 




* 


4 


6 3 


J * 


* 






' 7 


t 9m 7 


• 




* 




* 


• 


* 


64 


1 4 




2 


4 




1 6*0 


* 










* 


* 


6 5 


1 6 


* 


2 


5 


5 


4*5 




• 


1 


* 


* 




* 




1 7 


• 




7 


2 g 


15 0* 3 


2 








* 


* 


* 


C 7 




• 


? 


5 


74 


' 7 # « 


• 




* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


ACT 


1 a 


• 










* 


* 


* 


• 


* 


• 


J 




20 


• 






115 


160 1 










* 


• 




70 


2 2 


* 


2 


4 


1 0 


46« 2 


3 






* 


* 


* 


* 


7 | 


















I 


* 




* 


J 




O A 


* 




1 2 




9 5* 7 






j 


* 


• 


• 




7 3 


%\ 
~~ 


* 


* 








* 


• 


f 


* 


* 


• 


• 


7 4 




• 




2 




1 2* 2 


* 


* 




* 


• 


* 


* 




9 n 


* 






2 




• 




2 






• 


• 




5a 


• 






1 363 


1 782*8 


66 


3 Q 


7 


| j 










Tn 


• 




* 


76 


9^4* a 






7 


2 


* 






7 8 


i 
| 












• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


* 


• 


79 


J 






?4 
* 


88 1 


Ql A 1 

J 2* i 




• 


* 


• 


• 


• 


* 




J 












* 


• 




• 


• 


• 


• 






j 






* 


t *« 




• 


• 






• 


• 


a? 




o 


3 






1 4-1 4 




* 










* 




J 

I 


i i 








1 M IB T 




9 




? 








n A 


J 


J ^ 


3 


1 9 




IT* * | 


23 










• 














• 


ft* 1 


• 


J 
J 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


86 


| 


1 4 




1 0 


* 


100 1 












• 




8 7 




I 5 


3 






0* 6 


• 


x 


• 


• 


* 


• 




88 


J 


1 6 






3 


13*4 


• 




* 


• 


• 


• 




e9 




j 7 


3 




2 3 


7 • 5 


• 


• 




* 


• 


• 


• 


90 




1 8 


3 






0* 1 


• 


* 




• 


* 


• 


* 


9 t 




2 4 


3 


3 






• 


• 




• 




• 




9 2 




3 5 


3 


2 


2 


0*4 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


9 3 


} 




3 








• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


54 




38 


3 


1 8 


4 52 


♦ 7* 0 


• 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


95 




39 


3 


2 


2 


0* 3 


• 


* 


• 


2 


• 


* 


* 


96 


. 


40 


3 


2 


2 






• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


S 7 


j 


* ' 


3 






?* 4 


1 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


98 


| 
J 






* 


* 


2* A 




• 


• 


J 


• 


• 


• 












? 


5*5 


J 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


100 


J 
[ 






* 






• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


10 1 




4 6 






A 


36* 4 


* 


• 


• 




• 


• 


• 


1 02 


: 


4 7 


3 


3 


8 


9* 8 


* 


* 


* 




* 


* 


* 


103 


2 


I 


3 


3 


# 


130*2 
















104 


2 


2 


3 


3 


870 


980* 0 


• 














1 05 


2 


1 1 


3 


I 


10 


21 6*8 


3 














106 


2 


1 2 


3 




3 


2 5. 2 


• 














107 


2 


14 


3 


1 


1 


5.4 
















1 08 


2 


15 


3 


I 


1 


0*5 


• 














109 


2 


17 


3 


1 


2 


0* 9 


• 














I 10 


2 


27 


3 


1 


13 


1*6 


• 














111 


2 


30 




1 


5 


0*7 


• 














112 


2 


38 


3 


1 


13 


3*3 


• 














113 


2 


46 


3 


1 


1 


3.0 


• 














1 1 A 


2 


47 


3 


1 


1 


1*2 


• 














1 15 


3 


I 


3 


7 




60*3 
















116 


3 


2 


j 


8 


302 


41 5.0 


• 














1 17 


3 


3 


3 




I 


0* 3 


1 














1 1 8 


3 


5 


3 


1 


1 


0*5 


1 














1 19 


3 


8 


3 


1 


40 


10*8 


5 






14 






6 


120 


3 


10 


3 


3 


3 


8* 0 


• 




* 


1 






• 


121 


3 


I 1 


3 


4 


33 


61 6*6 


8 




i 


6 






4 


122 


3 


1 2 


3 


4 


8 


38* 0 


5 






2 






1 



ES— FEATURES* OOBREE SITE 



F F 

I I 

S S 

H H 

1 2 

14 2 
1 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



Nicholas Honerkamp was born in Cincinnatti, Ohio, on 
February 13, 1950. He has had the good fortune to live in 
Florida most of his life, where he met and married his wife, 
Robin L. Smith. His interest in anthropology and archeology 
was first provoked by his mother, Marjory W. Power, who is a 
professional archeologist . He graduated from the University 
of Florida with a B.A. in anthropology in 1972 and obtained 
an M.A. from that institution in 1975. He has participated 
in historic and prehistoric archeological projects in 
Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Vermont. His principal fields 
of interest include historical archeology, archeological 
theory, and curation of archeological materials. His outside 
interests include competative running (10,000 meters and 
above), salt and fresh water fishing, martial arts, and the 
Fender electric bass. He was a founding member of the Mildew 
Brothers, an ahead-of - i ts-t ime bluegrass group of the mid- 
1970s. 



320 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

I Charles H. Fairbanks, Chair 
Distinguished Service Professor 
of Anthropology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



fhl ppn A. Flpacran V 



Kathleen A. Deagan 
Associate Professor of Anthropology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

Prudence M. Rice 

Assistant Professor of Anthropology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is f ully^-ertTe^uate , in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for yfe degnee of Doctor r>f Phirlbsophy , 





aid T. Milanich 

ociate Professor of Anthropology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my 
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly 
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



John K. Mahon 
Professor of History 



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
the Department of Anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts 
and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted 
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy. 

December 1 980 



Dean, Graduate School